Denuvo server issues prevented players from playing Batman: Arkham Knight, Mad Max & Shadow of War

DSOGaming writes: "It appears that some Denuvo server problems prevented PC gamers from playing their legitimate copies of Batman: Arkham Knight and Mad Max. According to reports, both of these games were not working properly in the past couple days. And while the games seem to be back on track right now, a lot of reports suggest that these issues were caused by the Denuvo anti-tamper tech."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
OoglyBoogly300d ago

Not surprising. I find it interesting these games still use Denuvo considering they've been cracked and their age (minus Shadow of War).

300d ago Replies(1)
300d ago
warriorcase300d ago (Edited 300d ago )

Shadow of war was cracked weeks back so yeah, seems strange it's still being used? I guess after this they would surely be removing it.

staticall300d ago

You would think, that Batman Arkham Knight already had enough issues on PC, but no, gotta add Denuvo as well.

starchild300d ago

Batman Arkham Knight has run extremely well for a long time now. It's true that it should have never had problems to begin with, but lets not blow things out of proportion. The game was fixed relatively quickly and has run just fine since then. I'd say it's actually one of the better optimized games this generation in terms of the visual quality to performance ratio.

Princess_Pilfer300d ago

That's flat out not true for quite a number of people, and WB took a lot of heat for basically abandoning the issues rather than fixing them.

starchild300d ago


Really? I've run it on several different PCs with different parts and it's run great on all of them. I've talked to a few other PC gamers who say it runs fine for them too.

WB took heat for releasing the game in a poor state initially, but everything I've seen and heard points to it having been fixed a long time ago.

Mr_Writer85300d ago

Legit players being punished for the behaviour of pirating scum.

Cobra951300d ago

Right. Pirates have no such problems. Some people buy the games, but use the cracked binaries to take control of what they've bought. This has been going on since the no-CD days, at least.

quent300d ago

Yep, have been using megagames and gamecopyworld for over a decade now

OoglyBoogly300d ago (Edited 300d ago )

Or is it corporate greed considering there's been NO studies shown that pirates hurt any industry. In fact all the ones I've seen show pirates buy more if anything.

Blame this on these publishers that shove shit down legit buying customers throats. Pirates don't deal with this shit. Is it a pirates fault Denuvo breaks games?

kevnb300d ago

I think it’s mostly shareholder pressure, it’s also easy for the drm sellers to convince publishers to add drm.

instantstupor300d ago (Edited 300d ago )

It's a pirates fault it's there to begin with. If everyone just bought the thing like they should, anti-tamper tech wouldn't be needed.

I don't care what logic people use, stealing is stealing. Fair is fair, and there is no way that not paying for something while someone else is is fair. Not paying for something that you end up enjoying when it is meant to be bought is not fair. I don't care that people look to vague statistics (that are never linked to, but talked about so often - but honestly, not even the point) to say piracy doesn't hurt sales. I don't care if the alternative was you'd never have bought it so the "lost" sale doesn't matter. That literally doesn't work in any other medium, and just because it doesn't have a physical cost does not entitle anyone to it for free. Period.

I still think it should only be in games for the first few weeks (most crucial sale time) or until it has been broken. I can't fault them for trying to protect their investment. I can fault them for using tech that clearly ends up hurting legit users when those who acquire it illegally don't have to deal with it. All these things can be looked at separately, they shouldn't be conflated.

Princess_Pilfer300d ago (Edited 300d ago )


What's the difference between buying a game used, getting it from a friend, and pirating it as far as publishers are concerned? Trick question, there isn't one. And no, you can't say limited supply, video games are a multi billion dollar industry, supply is *litterally* never a problem. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. Not to mention things like buying games in pursuit of "fairness" can actually do harm instead of just deny a benefit (see: G2A.)

For Piracy increasing sales:
Moar links!

So, simply put, pirates buy more stuff legally than anybody else, participate more and so indirectly sell copies though word of mouth, and the piracy itself is having no negative impact. Sure *some* people are just never going to buy anything they don't have to, but that's not most people. Most people will quite happily support products they like. (PS, I have no evidence, but I'd bet my left hand actual proper demos would lead to less piracy, but also fewer sales, because then people have a way to know if they're actually interested in the game before buying, one of the primary reasons (asside from being too poor) pirates will give for why they pirate things.)

Mr_Writer85300d ago

If people didn't pirate there wouldn't be any need for all this.

"corporate greed" is a poor excuse.

Their behaviour is punishing gamers have bought the game.

Scum, end of. People work hard to fund their hobby and have rubbish like this to deal with.

instantstupor300d ago (Edited 300d ago )


Apt name :-p Also prepare yourself for a deluge of text! Sorry about this... (Part 1 of 2)

I've seen the study that pirates are more likely to spend more on media. I find this a sticky subject because I don't know how one can know how much the value of the things they stole is versus what they buy. Yes, there is a net positive on the expenditures on media, but you know there are going to be things that are stolen & enjoyed, but not purchased. If just the "industry" got money and gave it to everyone making music/movies/games equally, then it would be harder to argue against. More money is more money. But that's not the case, there are TONS of individual creators.

Would you be OK if you put out an album and a Pirate downloaded it, paid you nothing, but bought the next 5 albums from other artists they like? They spent more money overall, but you didn't get anything for your efforts. There isn't any information on conversion rate from what is pirated to what is bought. Those who have a high interest in pirating content are also those who are going to be most interested in said content. If that argument holds, I should be able to go out and steal a PS4. As a big tech & gaming person, I'll still spend WAAAAY more than the average person on tech and gaming so I'm a net win for the industry. But that isn't right, that argument doesn't hold water (I'll speak to that a bit a couple paragarphs down).

On the buying used versus pirating point. We can resell any physical object to anyone we want. First, the game itself. Most people who sell their games back to GameStop will immeidately put those funds back into gaming. Sometimes a new game, somtimes a used game. So while only some of that money may get back to publishers directly via new copy sale, at the absolute worst the other sales are still legal. Speaking back to the console example, I could buy a used PS4 instead of buying a new one. Sony misses out on the profits from that console since the money now goes to an individual. That said, I'm not allowed to just go out and steal a PS4 simply because Sony wouldn't have gotten a sale from me. The only difference to you is that since there is no loss of materials/production cost for a copy of a game vs a PS4 that has a cost to produce in materials, that this somehow changes the justness of the action.

Want a close approximation to a physical good with almost no production costs? Let's look at pharmaceuticals. Sure, not the most ethical business sometimes, but bear with me as it is still a close analog given large upfront expenditures & a product being sold with little inherent value. All the money that you pay to buy a drug, especially new drugs, goes into repaying R&D. The actual pills cost almost nothing. Pennies in some cases. That doesn't give you the right to either steal the medication or stealing it and then sending Phizer a dollar in the mail to recouperate their materials cost. If you weren't going to buy it anyway, stealing it doesn't matter since they don't end up *losing* anything, right?

If you look at a product as a product, then I don't see how you can agree with one scenario and not the other. I think most would still be able to see that in all scenarios, taking without paying (or paying cost of goods) would not be *right*.

instantstupor300d ago (Edited 300d ago )

@ Princess_Pilfer (Part 2 of 2)

And sure, there is some jankiness in terms of key reselling, I'll give you that. But for the most part, that is a business of people buying from a poorer market and reselling in a more affluent market. That is also something that is legal to do with physical goods. Happens all the time getting things from Shenzhen for pennies on the dollar & reselling for more. It's why we've lost a lot of production in the US to other countries. Doesn't change or justify purchasing things in a retail sense, does it? I'm not saying this is a good solution, nor an ideal solution. In terms of software, yea, the devs make less than if you bought it directly in your stronger currency rather than to a middleman who used a weaker one. They at least still get something. Still not entirely just, but within the (more gray) legal boundaries and at worst is still more legal than simply stealing.

And sure, key stealers exist, there are ways people that abuse the system, but this isn't an issue solely inherent to games. If so, the fact we can buy things in back alley markets where stolen goods cost less than legitimate purchases would completely undermine buying goods IRL from retailers, right? So it would seem that using *some* buying scenarios as a reason against buying games from a proper distributer is a poor argument. And there are informed people like you - not saying you of course, I don't know you or your spending habits - but people like you out there that know where to buy games so the money goes directly into the developers pocket, but instead use that information to justify their behavior.

The intent with this isn't that I'm aiming this all at you of course. Obviously I have no idea how much you do or don't pirate, or if you pirate at all. Just enjoying a spirited debate. Also even with this avalanche of words, I'd still like to point out that the bottom line about what is JUST or RIGHT still stands on its own in my eyes. You can't argue that certain kinds of stealing are OK, regardless of the knock on effects. Stealing is stealing. They are called Pirates for a reason.

Princess_Pilfer300d ago

Stastics.All things being equal, chances are that for every person who steals my thing and legally buys 5 other things, there will be someone who buys my thing and "steals" something different. You don't design around edge cases. Sure, if my product is crap or is super unpopular or if they stars align against me I could get screwed, but it's not likely.

Piracy is called Piracy, not stealing, for a reason. If you steal a physical game or console, you've done actual material damage by depleting a limited resource. Nothing is lost when you pirate a game. The original copy is still there, the product is still in stores (digital and otherwise) to be bought. A sale isn't even lost, it's difficult/impossible to demonstrate that the pirate would have bought the game in the first place. That's a fundamental difference that you can't just dismiss while claiming they're morally equivilant despite dramatically different circumstances.

Unless you have a study that shows that most of the money goes back into the industry instead of just doing laps though gamestop, you'reg oin to have to show them, especially after you called out other people for not citing sources. I can similarly make the claim, using the example you gave no less, that the money someone saved by pirating goes back into the industry, because they can buy a different game, or even buy the game they pirated after deciding they like it.

Moralizing about what's right or just isn't going to do you any good. Rightousness and Justice are points of view, points of view often used to justify some pretty heinous crimes.. We should be making make rules/laws and take action based on preventing actual, provable harm, not on vague notions of what is or isn't right.

What you're saying is the equivilant of saying that if someone comes over to your house and beats a game you own, or live with you and beat a game you own while you're at work, they're morally in the wrong for not paying for it. Because in every way that matters, there's no difference between that and piracy.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 300d ago
Princess_Pilfer300d ago

Yes, yes they would. It's not about piracy, and it never was. It's about control. Hence the ink cartrage DRM that is intended to stop you buying off brand cartraiges, and the same for fancy coffee pots and juice presses and apples lawsuit to attempt to claim that jailbreaking their stuff so you can have non-apple approved apps is illegal (that they lost btw.) It's about dictating when and how you are allowed to play your games, it's about telemetry so they can sell your information and requiring you to be online so you can't circumvent their microtransaction/lootbox garbage by hacking the game, it's about control, not stopping piracy.

Piracy has essentially no impact on sales, and Ubisoft has *admitted* this in the past. They already know it, and they put in DRM anyways.

And "corperate greed" isn't a thing I offered as an excuse. But if people were given the option for an actual full demo so they could see if they liked a game (instead of the 2 hour time limited nonsense in the shape of a refund policy that doesn't give anyone time to actually grasp the full measure of many, many, many games) piracy would go down. They don't want to, because they've adopted an anti-consumer stance where the only information they want anyone to have is the information they've given out, and they want everyone to buy just based on that. So yeah, people pirate to not have to deal with that and make an actually informed purchase decision, and as discussed, DRM would be here wether or not piracy was a factor. Deal with it.

Mr_Writer85299d ago

"Because in every way that matters, there's no difference between that and piracy."

How so? I've bought that game? They don't own that game they're borrowing it off me. Once finished they return it to me.

The fact after all your muddled up mess of long posts you have to resort to this says everything.

Piracy is wrong, no matter HOW you dress it up.

And it's because of said piracy that legit gamers who don't pirate any game have to jump through hoops to play games they have paid for.

This isn't a Robin Hood stealing from the rich for the poor. It's thinking that the world owes you free entertainment and your actions are punishing others who understand how buying for things is how the world works.

Princess_Pilfer299d ago

The result is the same. You play the game, get the full experience, and don't pay for it. You're drawing a line about wether or not the game has been purchased where no such line actually exsists as far as the impact on the industry goes. Failing to acknowledge or refute any points and simply repeating yourself is not an argument.

I've already explained that DRM is in coffee machines and juice presses and printers and phones and many other things where piracy is not a factor, because DRM isn't about stopping piracy.

Mr_Writer85299d ago (Edited 299d ago )

Piracy is illegal.

Borrowing a legit copy of a game from a friend isn't.

If both were illegal you would have a point, but there not.

No amount of waffle will change that cold hard fact.

Princess_Pilfer299d ago

Lots of stupid things are illegal. In the US doctors can't help me kill myself if I have an extremely painful terminal illness and just want to get it over with rather than spend the next 6 months in misery, depression and agony, in fact they're often legally obligated to force me to suffer though it. So that's not an argument either. Shock horror, laws can be immoral, ineffective, or pointless, just like any other rule can.

Not to mention you've moved the goalposts, again. If you were making the argument that you shouldn't do it because it's illegal and it's not worth the potential punishement, that would be one thing. Except that's not the argument you're making, so "it's illegal" doesn't support your point.

Mr_Writer85298d ago (Edited 298d ago )

So your saying that copying something that doesn't belong to you has the same morality as a friend lending you a game they have bought?


I'm done.

Next you will be saying that if I let my friend drive my car that's the same as stealing a car as he didn't pay for the car.

And hope you never have a lady friend who has never seen a film you own, as she sees that film and she has now become a pirate.

Borrowing a game and making an illegal copy of the game to own for yourself are two very different situations.

Thats the difference, and why one is illegal and one isn't.

Princess_Pilfer298d ago

1: Not stealing. You aren't diminishing a limited resource.

2: Tell me, based on the following questions, am I talking about piracy or playing a game at a friends house?

Do the publishers make money? No.
Is the experience still had? Yes.
Does the person contribute to the industrys economy by experienceing it that way? No.
Could the industry survive if everyone experienced the product that way? No.

Tell me which one I'm talking about, and if one is so horrible and one is perfectly fine, explain what factor makes the difference. Because if the impact on the industry is the same, and the user experience is the same, litterally the only 2 factors in this discussion, why is one thing moral and one wrong?

Mr_Writer85298d ago

"1: Not stealing. You aren't diminishing a limited resource."
I never said it was stealing, I said making a copy of a product, thats what piracy is. It's making a copy of a product in order to use that product for free.

"2: Tell me, based on the following questions, am I talking about piracy or playing a game at a friends house?

Do the publishers make money?"

Yes as I have bought the game, that disc becomes my property. Read agreements in games they say you can lend said disc to anyone, the one thing I can't do is make a copy and give (or sell that copy)

" Is the experience still had? Yes.
Does the person contribute to the industrys economy by experienceing it that way?"
They don't need to, I have done so, that disc is my property. Again developers /publishers take very little issue with this as they can't stop it as it's legal.

" Could the industry survive if everyone experienced the product that way? No. "
Completely hypothetical so irrelevant.

"Tell me which one I'm talking about, and if one is so horrible and one is perfectly fine, explain what factor makes the difference."

One is legal one is illegal, I have already told you. One requires a physical purchase and would only be shared between a handful of people.

Also I bet the ‰ of people who borrow and complete games off friends is massively lower than illegal copy's of games.

Unless your saying that that there are the same amount of people borrowing games off friends to compition as those who pirate?

"Because if the impact on the industry is the same"

Oh you are saying that. Link to your figures please.

Princess_Pilfer298d ago

I've already explained that illegal or legal is irrelivant to the point you are trying to make. Unless you want to claim that slavery is morally ok because it's legal in some places that argument doesn't work.

You've completely side stepped the point of the rhetorical exercise by taking the opportunity to repeat yoursel, butI do have to point out, if that's how you want to play it, the people who upload various games *also* have to purchase copies. But maybe, you know, answer my actual question, can you tell if I was talking about borroing someone elses game or pirating the game?

For Piracy increasing sales:

Mr_Writer85298d ago

But neither of us live in a country where slavery is legal. Nice strawman though.

In both our sociaty it is both morally and leagal wrong to steal or copy an product that is not yours.

When you buy a disc you own that disc, you own the physical disc. You don't own the content on the disc, you can do as you please (within legal reason) with said disc.

When you pirate a game you're copying the property of someone else, you're copying something you do not own.

And good for those links, but again my opinion stands, if you pirate you're scum, makes no difference if you later buy the game (most likely at a reduced price in turn still hurting the industry, if you don't want to pay full price simply wait)

Anyway the fact you have gone to such lengths to not only defend but to justify piracy tells me you practice in this scummy act.

And deep down you know it's wrong and you don't like being called scum because well truth hurts I guess.

I will just leave this link, hopefully after viewing you will get my final message.

Princess_Pilfer297d ago

You made the argument that it's wrong because it's illegal. Pointing out the horrible stuff that is legal and the dumb stuff that isn't, isn't a strawman. That's the argument you made, unless you;'re trying to say that only your contries laws define morality.

You don't know where I live.

No, I just don't like miserable moralizing pissants who ignore evidence and judge people based on "opinions" with no factual support whatsoever.

Mr_Writer85297d ago

So your saying that piracy being both illegal and immoral is factually incorrect?

I take it that the actions of these pirates have made corporations more desperate to protect their work that they enforce these ridiculous anti piracy programs on genuine users is also factually incorrect?

I'm just calling pirates out for what they are.

Mr_Writer85297d ago

Also which countries allow slavery? As a quick Google search tells me that whilst a number of countries have slavery issues, none of their governments have actually said slavery is okay/allowed, they just can't tackle it as effectively as first world countries.

But I'm genuinely interested in knowing where slavery is legal.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 297d ago
300d ago Replies(2)
kevnb300d ago (Edited 300d ago )

And this is why certain drm hurts sales more than piracy can.

Cobra951300d ago

Absolutely. There's no way I'll buy AC Origins on PC in its current state. I wanted that game too. Their overly intrusive, performance-hammering DRM has lost them one sale here.

kevnb300d ago

I agree, I love pc gaming but not enough to deal with drm this crappy.

Psychotica300d ago

Game ran great for me and I really enjoyed it..

kevnb299d ago

great if the game ran great for you, not so great when the servers go down and you cant even play.

Show all comments (45)