Talk:Denuvo

Poorly sourced material

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It was no reliable sources given for whether the game was "cracked" or not. xrel is a community based website where everyone can upload nfo files (if you have a user account), one could fake such an nfo file. It is therefore not a reliable source as of WP:UGC. I do not see how this can be an accurate proof whether a game is cracked or not since this site does not offer any cracks, they just have (easy to fake) nfo files. Notice about not reliable source exist since August 2016 but has been ignored by authors. That information are reliable and accurate is the base for everything else. Of course if would be useful if there were reliable information whether a game is cracked or not. But these do not exist right now. And just making something up is no solution either. So I had no other choice than to take action and remove this questionable information, resp. to keep the column but remove the unreliable sources there (which were most of them). But please if you have any other provable information about this xrel site than I have let me know. --TheRandomIP (talk)

then Why even bother to list cracked or not if only news can be reliable source? might as well just remove that useless column, people who are interested can just google to find out if it's cracked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.125.190.97 (talk)

Agreed with the previous poster; currently, the column, at best, does not add much to the article, and, at worst, misinforms (since the lack of an entry in the column may suggest that a crack never existed). Since a poorly source list that ends up nigh-empty once WP:UGC is enforced seems more like cruft to me than anything else, I've went ahead and removed the column from both tables in the article. It's not Wikipedia's job to inform users whether a software has been cracked or not; there are plenty ways for them to find that out on their own, and it does not have much of a bearing on how Denuvo functions as software. --ThePaSch (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree. In my initial edits I even removed the column completely but then some other editor said he thinks this is "valuable information". So I thought he might be satisfied if I keep the column but remove the poorly sourced information only as he might be willing to find better sources for the missing entries then. Turns out he wasn't. He wasn't interested in accurate information at all. Pascal40, thanks for finally removing the column which was my initially preferred solution. --TheRandomIP (talk)

Surely it is relevant to a page about a particular DRM technology to include information on whether or not it actually performed its intended purpose or not, i.e. not broken. Similarly to how a page about "high-tech" security locks on doors would include information on whether or not these were easily defeated (and when) and thus informing the reader that 'No, this isn't a solution'. Without information on the downsides and failure to perform its function, this page reads more like a PR brochure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.6.107 (talk)

I welcome you to find properly sourced information on the security/effectiveness of Denuvo! I principally agree that such information is relevant; what *isn't* relevant is listing every single house that has this type of lock built into its front door and noting whether that particular lock has been picked by anyone or not; much less if the source of that information is flimsy and likely biased against the lockmaker. --ThePaSch (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

May I point out to you that Denuvo#History already contains some information about possible cracks for Denuvo? You could expand these section and instead of listing every single game just describe which versions of Denuvo have been cracked yet. Denuvo is constantly being updated with more advanced techniques and then it takes a while until this new techniques are cracked. One could describe something like "after so and so many days / weeks, group XYZ was the first one to successfully crack Denuvo version x.y". Look how useful this is compared to just a stupid table. It is always easy and cheap to just make a table but much harder yet often more useful to the reader if you summarize the main points in text form. I think this is the way to go for this article since we anyway will not be able to find credible sources for every single game. And as pointed out earlier, just listing some games may create a false impression. And as said above, that information are reliable and accurate is the base for everything else. You cannot just add unreliable information then just add a tag "warning: the following information might be wrong". That's just stupid. How can this be useful for anyone? I know a lot of people don't care for truth anymore, this phenomenon is called "post-truth". But here in Wikipedia this is not how things are done. --TheRandomIP (talk)

If information is poorly sourced it should be marked as such not totally deleted, that's just irresponsible. Wherever game was cracked or not IS valuable information. So in my (random's guy) opinion it should be preserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.242.96.31 (talk)

See above. --ThePaSch (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of the information in the column was properly sourced. Primary source citations are not allowed, but in my opinions properly sourced citations should be restored. Falderol (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources ARE reliable sources for some facts. See Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources, in particular under "Primary Sources Are Not Bad." They are, as noted there, often the best source possible for simple and uncontroversial facts about the primary source or the person/group who issued it. A company's product announcement is a primary source, and also often the best available source to cite for simple and undisputed facts (like "Acme released a widget in 2002"). Similarly, an NFO is a primary source issued by a scene group and taking credit for a particular crack. It'd be a mistake to take Acme's word that their widget is the best widget or CODEX's word that they are, I don't know, unbeatable (you'd want a secondary source like Consumer Reports or WidgetWorld for analysis) but Acme's claim to produce a widget and CPY's claim to have released a particular crack on a particular day are both reasonable citations from those sources. Zabieru (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This is getting a huge amount of attention on reddit and people are questioning the impartiality of Wikipedia users hiding the status of the DRM circumvention efforts in Denuvo applications. --Bisaknospus (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This should have no bearing on whether the content stays or not; if public opinion was a criterion on what gets to stay and what has to go, WP would be a very different place. Additionally, the subreddit in question isn't exactly known for its own impartiality, especially regarding this topic (or DRM in general). As I've stated above, adding a (properly sourced) section outlining this particular solution's effectiveness (or lack of it) isn't something anyone could conceivably be against, but the previous version of this list was getting rather WP:LISTCRUFT-y. Whether any particular game has been cracked or not is irrelevant to the software's function - if a proper source can be found for its effectiveness 'in general', then I'd highly support its addition to the article.--ThePaSch (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the best we can do is to educate people how to find credible sources and how to use these to expand the article. Someone on reddit posted my initial posting and most people actually followed this argumentation and an interesting discussion about how to find credible sources in general has been started. --TheRandomIP (talk)

Yes, the column may be not useful(and quite unreliable, there is no way to link the nfo directly from the cracker themselves or confirm its validity). But one can compromise by referring to a reliable source of cracked games count in the description, albeit it may need to be updated if it's too outdated, and there are not many (reliable) sources counting how many games cracked. How many games get cracked vs uncracked is quite a measure on how efficient it's. Another way is having game count table based on each Denuvo "version" rather than whether each game is cracked to avoid cruft problem, it is still hard to find a reliable source though, and the difference of versions is unknown. Ssd21345 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe only include cracks that cracked a new version or got significiant media attention (from credible sources)

Yes! That's the best solution IMHO. --TheRandomIP (talk)

Edit : and if you keep all games, use predb.pw as source instead of xrel, as they dont use usersubmitted content and instead scrape from scene PRE logs.143.179.86.164 (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Majikthise.uk: I think we all agreed that the version you just restored is the "worst of both worlds". Also discussion has not been finished. Can someone else revert please as I have done too many reverts already? I think as of now, a lot of people support the "keep tablecolumn out" solution. --TheRandomIP (talk)

I am of the opinion that until the talk has been resolved that the information is maintained on the page to reduce the number of edits, especially given the semi protected nature of the page and the contentious nature of the edit. Even more so given the whole sale removal of a large part of information that has been maintained for quite a while, because of what at the time was one persons determination that it was badly sourced. @TheRandomIP: It has existed on the page for quite a long time and as such that should be taken into consideration before the removal, it could be updated with a more acceptable source in that case. If nothing else it looks to none editors as an attempt to hide information be that through a games publisher / Denuvo pressure to protect their product. Ultimately Wikipedia is here to promote information exchange there was no promotion of the cracks themselves only that the games were indeed cracked Majikthise.uk (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

There has been a tag "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable" for almost two years (!). So this is nothing I just came up with, and everybody should have been aware of this issue. If this was so important to you, then why didn't you find these reliable sources within this period of time? If an issue is not resolved within years, then ultimately it has to be resolved by removing the questionable content. --TheRandomIP (talk)

I, for one, support the inclusion of the material. Benjamin (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, what the heck Wikipedia users? There's many ways to cite that a DRM crack exists. Look at NFO files that come with the cracks, for example. Or perhaps interview the release teams to explain, in layman's terms, how these cracks are achieved. There are a million different ways on explaining, with citations, why DRM like Denuvo can be cracked easily. Removing content from an article only makes things worse. 131.123.50.162 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please direct your attention to the History section of the article, where plenty of actual and timely information about previous Denuvo cracks can be found. That section has remained completely intact; the only thing that was removed was a WP:LISTCRUFT-y enumeration of every single game's crack status, which is WP:TOOMUCH (and was poorly sourced to boot). I honestly do not know how anyone can truthfully claim to take away a positive impression of the product after reading the article.--ThePaSch (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And? DRM and cracking are terms that can't be separated. Giving the cracked status of a game using the DRM of the main article is good information due to how much cracking games is talked about when discussing DRM. Again, use citations like NFO files, interviews, articles from websites like crackwatch.com, and so on. While I agree that there should be more research done on a piece of the article being going public, I think the idea of having a cracked column for the list of games would be necessary information to add. 18:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Your assertion that the column is WP:TOOMUCH is, frankly, ridiculous. Given Denuvo's chief job is to prevent piracy, whether or not it has been circumventable is inherently important. Any argument you could make for the "Cracked" column being excessive or trivial detail applies to the entire table. The only discussion to be had here is how to source the information. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

NFO files are not reliable sources on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but some information and scene data simply is not viable as sources on Wikipedia. You can read WP:RS for more information. Wikipedia cannot conduct it's own interviews to prove things (Wikipedia does have a news project, but it is unreliable for use directly on Wikipedia). As ThePaSch notes, the article goes into quite indepth explaination of how quickly cracks have been released and how they have been faster and faster. The column is not necessary to illustrate that. -- ferret (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Remove the column. It's not Wikipedia job or place to catalog the cracking or pirating of products. In the specific context of the history of the DRM solution and cracks that have broken each version, the history section does a more than adequate job of detailing this (and likely needs a little trimming). Reliable sourcing for all games being cracked or not will likely never exist, nor does Wikipedia need to catalog such anyway. We're not a directory for people to check if a game is cracked or not. As typically in these types of flair ups with Reddit attention, this content belongs on one of the PC Gaming dedicated wikis. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Assuming people agree to the inclusion of a 'cracked' column (personally support it but we'll see) The current compromise is atrocious. While it might make sense for the editors involved at the time, from an outside perspective you've listed falsely that 118 games are currently uncracked. Should have left the No's in at least while people slowly populated the table back up with more reliable sources. AiSard (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The "current compromise" (at this exact moment) is that the column has been removed entirely, which avoids the issue of a false representation of whether something has been cracked, or not, or is simply omitted. -- ferret (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think that this article currently conveys that 118 games are uncracked? It's saying that those games utilize Denuvo protection, which is factual. I remain of the opinion that Wikipedia should not be an index of what software is cracked or not. It's perfectly sensible to add sections of text describing how few games remain that do not have some kind of bypass to that protection, but, again, listing the crack status of software is not encyclopedic information. I'm honestly curious what value you think can be derived from having such information in the article.--ThePaSch (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe that removing the column, while adding in an additional section noting the ineffectiveness of the DRM and its vulnerability to cracking might be a potentially optimal solution. Ferret is right by saying that the crack state of a game using Denuvo would be more appropriate on a PC gaming dedicated wiki, but the information's existence on the main article also had a secondary function of providing insight as to the DRM's viability and usefulness. Being an encyclopedic resource, it's also important to show this aspect of the prevalence of cracking, while avoiding the clutter and more specialized information as to which specific games were cracked. 2600:1700:E9F0:7A60:B0EB:3BB7:C2EE:7743 (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

From the perspective of someone heavily interested in release groups, along with analysis of the last decade or two of DRM; the main function DRM serves seems to be keeping the game from being pirated on the first few days of release. Does go hand in hand with the insights of DRM being viable, though it's not much of a long-term solution now and mainly serves to, again, prevent the game from being pirated week one of a game's release to net in the most value of a game. 131.123.50.162 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Basically 95% of the article's prose text is dedicated to coverage of the DRM being cracked or causing user issues. I think the viability and usefulness (or rather, the lack of) is quite well illustrated already as a result. A lot of people seem to be fighting for the column without even reading the History and Controversy sections. -- ferret (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we need to restructure the article? When a chapter is called "history" people seem to expect some "boring" stuff like version history or operating numbers. I think there could be a dedicated chapter for bypassing attempts. --TheRandomIP (talk)

Removing content not pointlessly repeated from a primary source to some kind of popular secondary source is advocating the loss of knowledge. This is ridiculous. The "cracked" column needs to be reinstated, and this article unlocked. 2600:1008:B04B:F2CD:1961:8DD5:5918:681A (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This. Further, it seems to me that an NFO, as a primary source, is actually perfectly adequate as a source for basic and uncontroversial facts, as per Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#"Primary"_does_not_mean_"bad". A company's product release announcement is adequate sourcing for the existence of the product, and a scene group's NFO seems pretty similar. Hell, if you want a secondary source, Crackwatch.com is right there. Is it bare-bones? Absolutely, but then, you're asking a secondary source to do the work of a primary, so perhaps it's worth comparing it to "istheiphone12outyet.com" rather than the New York Times. Is it pseudonymous? Yes, but given the subject matter that's understandable. It does appear to be accurate and consistent and it doesn't accept user submissions. 98.232.66.208 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing the column showing a game's status is censorship and it violates freedom of expression. Perhaps a third list of known cracked games is more to the taste of the person that remove the entire column. My advise, the person(s) that did that broke the law and that is a serious dollop of culpability as well. Bill of Rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.23.172 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There's zero legalities involved in this and no laws broken. Let's not get hyperbolic. -- ferret (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find any major gaming publication listing cracking dates for most games (for example https://www.pcgamer.com/search/?searchTerm=denuvo), this is extremely relevant to the article's topic, this is an anti-tamper software, people will be interested if the game was tampered and when, and there are sources for it. Removing this info is against WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED, and there wasn't any consensus to remove the column. Loganmac (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV hardly enters into it. Nearly the entire article is practically dedicated to discussing cracks and when/how quickly they were. The column itself is classic WP:NOTCATALOG. -- ferret (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Gentle reminder that an article isn't WP:NPOV or WP:NOTCENSORED just because you don't agree with what's in it (or what's not in it). Your claims are especially vexing because, as ferret has already pointed out, it is filled to the brim with negative language about Denuvo. If people are interested if a game was tampered with and when, they could A) just read about all the previous tamperings that the History section clearly describes, or B) seek out another source for that information; it's not Wikipedia's job to keep people up-to-date on cracks.--ThePaSch (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Gentle reminder that you're a brand new inexperienced editor with barely any substantive edits, and you're already happily damaging the public image of Wikipedia. Deleting unreliably-sourced content is straightforwardly justifiable per WP:V, with the caveat that it can be re-added once the sourcing issue has been rectified. Unilaterally deleting the whole damn section in the middle of a controversial backlash, so that the sourcing issues can never be resolved, and then edit warring over it, and then authoritatively and condescendingly lecturing people who disagree, is not only irregular from an on-wiki perspective, but it is just is terrible optics. At a certain point, when you literally have thousands of critical eyes on you, you need to use common sense and balance your in-the-moment preferred changes to the article, however reasonable, with the potential damage you'll be causing to Wikipedia's reputation. Please don't pull shit like this again, whatever petty "improvement" you think you're "contributing" to the encyclopedia is not worth the drama and the bad optics for the project, and we have a straightforward method of dealing with users who fail to operate with a base level of common sense. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree the discussion should have happened before the wholesale deletion of information, this was the reason I restored the article to it's pre-edit state. Given the semi-protected nature of the article that should have been enough of a hint that a discussion might want to be had before hand. If the problem was source then the opportunity to come to a consensus should had happened first, if the result was the nature of the sources then there should have been a period for that to be updated or just the removal of the unacceptable ones. Also your comments are highly combative and you don't seem to want to have a discussion on the topic only that you are anti the article with comments like "not publishing every lock on the door," that argument isn't really relevant here, given that it is relaying relevant information to some people especially those who don't want to use Denuvo, the argument could be made that information is listed on the specific releases in a lot of cases or under WP:NOTCATALOG which is a different matter and would push for the removal of that whole section. However given the time it has been part of the article and other consideration I am still not in favour of removing it Majikthise.uk (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC) EDIT : It also seems to me that you are going into a lot of pages and making massive edits that are getting reverted and getting into edit wars

One might note that ThePaSch is not the editor who started this fight or threw most of the fuel on the fire. It's User:TheRandomIP who decided that wholesale deletion was, in their words, "the only option" and stuck to that course after being reverted by four different editors (myself included), and then claimed to believe those editors were all sockpuppets and vandals when asked to stop reverting and discuss the change first. The edit summary where I was threatened with a ban was a special favorite of mine. In contrast, ThePaSch has been reasonable and willing to engage in discussion prior to making large deletions (even if I don't agree with their position or proposed solution). As an occasional editor of more than a decade's standing who has now largely disengaged from Wikipedia because of idiotic tempest-in-teapot blowups like this one, I don't think ThePaSch is the person doing the most damage to Wikipedia's public image, even if they are new and perhaps overbold.Zabieru (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a tag about unreliable sources for almost two years (!). I do not see how this would have needed any further discussion. The person who inserted this tag in a way already started the discussion. In a transferred sense he was saying "hey folks, the sources here are not reliable. What can you do about it?" and no one replied... --TheRandomIP (talk)

TheRandomIP did not do anything wrong. It is a very basic core content policy here that Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Removing unreliably-sourced content is not controversial from a Wikipedia policy perspective. You were in the wrong for restoring it without resolving the sourcing issue. As an admin, my concern is not with straightforward article quality control, though it did require a tactful, restrained response from both sides once it proved to be extremely controversial. A random inexperienced user stumbling into the midst of the controversy and throwing fuel on the flames by unilaterally deleting the whole section from the list without any consensus though, now that does not have a straightforward policy defense, that's why I call them out and not TheRandomIP. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing wrong? Fair enough. I've been out of the game for a while, I didn't realize WP:3RR, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:GF, WP:ESDONTS, WP:TALKDONTREVERT and the like were obsolete. You might want to note that on those policy pages. Zabieru (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

While I do appreciate the backing, I do think there's no point in stoking this particular fire any further. What's done is done. The storm seems to have mostly passed; let's just focus on pursuing consensus further down the page and let sleeping dogs lie. --ThePaSch (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see below where I've tried to reorganize the discussion a bit and get it focused. -- ferret (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Listcruft, or "How much is WP:TOOMUCH?"

I keep seeing mentions of these sorts of questions cropping up in the above discussions of reliable sourcing, and I thought it would be useful to break them out, because I think it's hard to have a useful or substantial discussion of whether a certain source is reliable enough when the underlying reality is that one of the participants actually just thinks that the fact shouldn't be there. It's hard to get anywhere with "is this a reliable source" when the topic keeps switching to "why is that content even in the article," and vice versa. So: can we maybe keep the listcruft/toomuch/notcatalog arguments separated from the reliability ones, to the extent possible?

To start us off, I can see both sides of this question. In a perfect world, there would be a reliable secondary source to point to so that we could include some brief summary content about how many games have had which versions of Denuvo and how long it took for cracks to appear, and the like. Unfortunately, as far as I know that sourcing doesn't exist. No reliable secondary source is doing that analysis at present. There is good sourcing for "this game has/had Denuvo and was released on $DATE," and it is at least possible that we'll come down on the side of finding reliable sourcing for the existence and date of a crack. Counting and adding up those numbers in order to generate a paragraph summary seems to fall on the wrong side of Original Research, but listing the games is pretty feasible (the list was there for years on end, and maintained pretty well, after all: it might not be perfect but it clearly wasn't an urgent problem either). It seems to me that ideally this page would be a summary rather than an itemized listing, but since that option doesn't exist, an itemized listing is better than nothing at all.Zabieru (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zabieru: There is a related discussion going on at WT:VG#Denuvo, please feel free to contribute your thoughts there, too. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 07:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For posterity: this discussion has now been moved back to this talk page, below (#Content_from_WT:VG and #Reorganizing_the_discussion). Hopefully this will help the next person who follows a link to Denuvo#List_of_Denuvo_games, finds it missing, considers restoring it, then spends 20 minutes trying to understand the history and relevant discussion. Raztus (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Controversial Wikipedia Edits Wipe Out Denuvo Crack History

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, interesting read. It's a good article, with balanced reporting, and even cites Jimmy Wales as one (hearsay) source for NFO databases being unacceptable as a source under current policies. Good to see that Torrentfreak remains a class act in its field. --ThePaSch (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I like it when media recognize the "I don't like this but according to WP "rules" it's understandable" difference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

When Wikipedia turns to be biased. I expected this source to be more objective. Money talks, huh? 31.42.47.12 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My only immediate issue with their write up is "Official Denuvo article". This isn't official anything, and has no ties to the company. The predictable suggestion that someone is getting paid because they followed Wikipedia policy is tiring. -- ferret (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)]

I think you're reading too much into the official bit. I doubt any suggestion of anyone being paid is intended. It's just a poor way of saying 'the wikipedia article on the subject' perhaps also in part reflecting the significance of wikipedia. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] for 5 pages which use the similar term "official wikipedia article" without any suggestion of paid editing that I noticed. Heck the term was used in these discussions Talk:The Specialists, Talk:Mumps, Talk:Destructoid, Talk:Mousa Dembélé (Belgian footballer), Talk:Friday the 13th Part 2. Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, the paid thing wasn't about torrentfreak's article but the IP comment immediately above and dozens of comments at Reddit voicing that the only way this could happen is if Denuvo is paying someone. -- ferret (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah that makes sense. Yeah the IP's comment is nonsense. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Under "Context Matters" the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS page says that the more maintained the source is the more reliable it is. I bet there are sources that are way less maintained, but still pass as reliable source. Can everyone make a quick edit? Maybe, but the community is fast on their toes. From everything I read on the guideline pages I can't surmise that the NFO sites are unreliable sources, whatever Jimma Wales might say. Having said that instead of a table listing everything there should just be a paragraph outlining that every game has eventually been cracked and the average time frame. Splitframe (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope they put the data back to normal, it totally goes agnanist the free speech basis that WikiPedia was based off... -- User:Meganinja202 (talk)

There is no free speech policy or basis for Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal is to build encyclopedic articles. See Wikipedia:Five pillars, and in particular the second pillar and core guiding policies such as Veritability. -- ferret (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read the policy What Wikipedia is not which says "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I consider it a crucial part of Denuvo history to mention which versions of the software that has been bypassed and not. I call for a vote. NuclearBoyScout (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

But the history section does cover the cracking of Denuvo versions. Off the top of my head without re-reading, it specifically mentions the first cracks for V3, V4, and V4+. From the already mentioned policy page on what "Wikipedia is not": WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. -- ferret (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Content from WT:VG

I have moved this content from WT:VG.

Perhaps we should axe these entire lists and try to stick to the most notable titles using them or the most notable crackings? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• +1 to just removing the entire table. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• We should just remove both tables and enprose games that notably used Denuvo (such as the very first title, or the game Just Cause 3, which led a Chinese cracking group to give up on the game).[6] Lordtobi (✉) 06:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Bin the lists (or at the very least fork them) and prose it. Include the first use, the most controversial use, the most faulty implementation, the most successful implementation, notable removals of it by the developers and any high profile cracking of it (all previous suggestions dependant on reliable sources obviously). - X201 (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm in favor of that approach in theory, but in practice the only one of those you could source right now is the first use. There just isn't a lot of secondary analysis out there. Just for example: by one metric, "most successful" might mean "oldest uncracked," but 1. apparently we don't believe any of the good-history-of-accuracy-but-anonymous sources for "is there a crack" are reliable enough at this moment, and 2. that's probably some oddball game no one cared about. So maybe it's "the high-profile game that stayed uncracked the longest?" That sounds good to me, but now you need to find a secondary source to tell you about that, and you're also going to need to keep revising that paragraph on a regular basis. (That's kind of a hidden advantage to the table approach: it's easier and more obvious for some rando editor to add new entries to a table rather than attempting a wholesale revision of the "most faulty implementation" section of a prose paragraph, not to mention the judgement call involved...) Giving a table lets the reader make that assessment for themselves even though we don't have the sourcing to spoon-feed it to them. It's not ideal, but I think it's better than nothing. Zabieru (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Removing the tables outright would be my favored endgame as well. For the record, I was the one who removed the column after another user had merely emptied and edit warred over it; my chief intention doing this was to initially quell the controversy coming in from Reddit, as it's a lot easier to justify the lack of a column rather than justifying why a column is filled with empty cells and a few strewn "yes" here and there (which will, of course, imply that every cell that's not a "yes" is a "no"); at least when you're justifying to a mob that's assuming some employee shill is getting paid to sit around and edit Wikipedia articles. I have since defended the removal of the column on the article's Talk page with many of the same arguments as above, chiefly that it isn't (or shouldn't be) Wikipedia's job to keep readers informed about the status of illegal software cracks. A good compromise that was proposed on the Talk page was removing the column and adding a section that specifically talks about the effectivity (or lack of it) of Denuvo to "make up" for the lost information of "every game is cracked" that the table provided earlier - I'm thinking that would indeed be the best thing to do, as it would placate everyone, except that I'm of the opinion that this new section should replace the entire table, not just the cracked-or-not column. I would, however, not be in favor of removing the table with no "replacement" for it, if only to not conjure up yet another typhoon in a bottle from Reddit or wherever. --ThePaSch (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For a little background: the article had that list for years. It was frequently updated and mostly well-maintained, aside from the latent question (never, to my knowledge, actually asked previous to this current scuffle) of whether scene NFOs are reliable sources or not. One editor decided to axe the column because he felt the sourcing was no good. Oddly, he made no attempt whatsoever to find better sources or discuss the issue beforehand. He got some pushback and decided to keep on reverting (five times!) complete with snide commentary in his edit summaries rather than take it to the talk page. When he finally did, it turns out some people agreed with him and some didn't. Ferret was in the latter category (though unlike the original editor, Ferret's been reasonable and willing to discuss the matter appropriately.) So in this case, in as much as anyone's "brigading," it's in favor of a long-functioning status quo and in defense of wp:consensus, etc. I don't love it either (can't stand most Reddit VG communities, personally) but I think Ferret's suggestion that "reddit wants a cracked column" is a little dodgy in light of the actual history.

One problem here is that there is a significant lack of good analysis in secondary sources, but there are decent and reliable primary sources for a lot of the basic facts. For instance, secondary sourcing on what games use Denuvo (or how many, or where one version leaves off and the next begins, or the like) is spotty and hard to find, but someone has made a consistent effort to use Steam pages (which are, for this narrow purpose, reliable primary sources IMO) to keep the list up to date.

So the question is less "should we put in a summary with a few notable examples and some analysis or should we have an itemized list" than "should we have an itemized list or nothing." There simply isn't an appropriate source, to my knowledge, for the sort of generalizations and summaries you'd want to put in a subsection like that (and deriving it by counting Steam pages yourself is, of course, original research.) We do have decent data to let the reader do their own simple analysis, though. To my eye, that seems like the better of the two choices. Zabieru (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Side note: While I left a message here, I did intent it more for editors to contribute at the talk page :) The discussion here is currently split from the discussion at the article, and going down seperate paths. Interested parties should probably join there, especially in regards to pushing for the table to be removed entirely. -- ferret (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For me, the only reason to keep the table is if it serves any value. They didn't create the game, so I'm not sure why we'd give similiar to developer credit Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems pretty easy to verify which titles have Denuvo, and (at least at this point) it’s not so unmanageable in the main article (which is preferable to a fork.) I’d agree with removing the ‘cracked’ column wholesale and going through notable examples and summaries from reliable sources, as the sourcing for doing that properly for the entire otherwise easily-verifiable list is pretty thin. A certain segment of gamers gonna’ get their jimmies rustled no matter what, but I don’t think ‘it makes Denuvo look more effective than it is’ is a very compelling argument, especially given the article as written. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

IMO the whole list must be removed for WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:TOOMUCH, it makes the article huge for no real reason. About the reliable sources, there can be no reliable source on if a game's protection was cracked because the people doing the reverse engineering are highly secretive and don't even like those cracks leaking most of the time. News/gaming news sites are definitely not reliable sources as they can't know too, they simply are informed usually by a 10th hand source, ie reddit that a game was cracked, reddit itself in that regard is more reliable than gaming news sites. The only reliable and easily web-facing accessible way if a scene release exist and is approved by the scene (not nuked) are pre websites that are known to provide that kind of information. Again, this shouldn't even be the point of discussion here. -- Hacker?pcs 19:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

--Izno (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Reorganizing the discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel an arbitrary break is needed if we're going to find any sort of resolution beyond it simply staying as is, and potentially being edit warred over again in two weeks. The general issue here is the removal of data in, and then the entirity of, a "Cracked" column for the table of games. One thing I want to open with is something I feel some comments have glossed over: There is an entire history section devoted almost entirely to mentioning the first time various Denuvo versions were cracked. The fact that Denuvo gets cracked has not been removed from this article in anyway.

There's four general outcomes that I can see in the various responses and comments.

1. Restore everything: This simply isn't going to happen. Unreliable sourced information was validly removed per Wikipedia policy.
2. Restore the column with valid sourcing: The column is returned but left blank unless a reliable source can be found that an entry has been cracked.
3. Leave the column out: This is the current article state.
4. Remove the table entirely: The table is removed entirely, perhaps replaced by categorization for notable games. This was brought up at WT:VG originally.

Consensus needs to be developed on where to go, with policy backed reasons. If there's another possible outcome that I didn't think up here, feel free to bring it up. -- ferret (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Leave the column out WP:NOTCATALOG, essentially. Wikipedia should not be tracking this data in a tabular format at all in my opinion. However, barring that, even if reliable sourcing exists from some entries, the vast majority of the entries will not have reliable sourcing despite being cracked, which makes the table feel empty, inaccurate and that it is omitting information. Those flaws make the column a poor fit here. I would weakly support removing the table entirely, as categorization would suit the purpose of denoting games with Denuvo just fine. Removing the column does not mean the cracking of games cannot be mentioned or covered. If reliable sourcing exists, they can be worked into the prose of the history section. -- ferret (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Remove table entirely, also NOTCATALOG. If /r/pcgaming wants to maintain and update a table of games using or formerly using Denuvo on a reddit wiki, I actually encourage it. I don't think every entry in the table is notable and it rises to the level of trivia in my mind. There are notable cases of Denuvo being cracked/not cracked/removed after a big cracking that have made splashes in the games press. These should be documented in prose with well-sourced references. We should also document the meta-narrative of Denuvo use over time and notable non-uses (e.g. CD Projekt iirc) and I'm confident that there are sources to support this. I don't think there is value to listing every game that happens to contain a piece of middleware no matter how benign or inimical it is, and it could be construed as free advertising for Denuvo. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Remove table entirely, WP:TOOMUCH. There is no point in copy protection systems' articles to have a detailed list of the products they are used in. SecuROM, SafeDisc and Tagès don't have one, Denuvo shouldn't have one too. History section is detailed and sourced enough to provide an image on the software's effectiveness if someone wants to know that. Hacker?pcs 23:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Remove table entirely, as per WP:TOOMUCH and WP:NOTCATALOG. I would, however, be in support of adding a new section where some of the content that is lost by doing so is reorganized and covered. I'd consider the History section to be a misnomer; it barely talks about individual versions of the software and its differences, when they were released/rolled out, and pretty much exclusively covers notable instances of cracks being released - much of this content could either be moved over to the Controversy section, or added to the aforementioned new section that would make up for the removal of the table. The History section, in my eyes, should be rewritten to outline a neutral and factual history of the software's development, the individual versions found in the wild, and notable products to have utilized them, rather than efforts towards its circumvention. --ThePaSch (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• In my opinion, removing the table entirely is nearly an act of sabotage. The table as it stands has been updated and maintained for years, largely by editors who have not weighed in on this discussion. Its function at the present moment could be replaced by a prose section, and that might even be preferable on toomuch/notcatalog grounds... however. That section would require more involved stewardship, on a continuing basis, because updating a prose section is a larger step than adding a new entry to a table. While I see a number of editors advocating for someone to do that, I do not see anyone volunteering to maintain that section and I notice that the "someone should" camp are not editors who have been involved in maintaining this page in the past. "We should delete what's been working for years and hope somebody will want to update the new thing" is the very model of a bad faith proposal, IMO. Therefore, Retain the table, leaving the column out if necessary. (As I've stated above, I think NFOs if properly sourced are reasonable primary sources. I've yet to see anyone offer any counterargument, but I recognize that it's an uphill fight and stripping the column for the time being is a reasonable compromise.) Zabieru (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is, at its core, a WP:SUNKCOST argument, i.e., people worked hard on this and the information "should" be somewhere so therefore keep the information and preserve the work. I contend in my post above that certainly this information is of human interest and "should" be somewhere, but that 'where' is not here, and not in the scope of Wikipedia. TheRandomIP below also makes a good point that the current table only generates the illusion of comprehensiveness while not actually providing anything of the sort. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually, no, it's not a sunk cost argument. The part where people worked hard on it is easy to preserve: we can summarize the work that has already happened in prose pretty easily. I'd be willing to do it and I suspect many of the editors who suggested that plan would as well: easy enough, it's a one-time task. The issue I'm trying to raise here is the FUTURE maintenance of the page, not the work that's already been done.Zabieru (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I believe in wiki magic and its ability to solve this hypothetical future maintenance problem. Drive-by editors can easily proseline new 'entries' which are subsequently wikignomed into less proseline-ish paragraphs over time. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Maybe. It's still a higher barrier to entry than exists now, and it's still being proposed and supported by people with no history and no announced intention of actually maintaining this page and largely without input from the editors who have been doing that work, so I think my point stands. You may think that the barrier hasn't been raised enough to actually matter, and you may be right (certainly I don't think it would slow you down)... but that doesn't mean it's not a barrier to some editors. Further, it definitely requires more editorial judgement and more room-reading (with more potential for disputes) to know when to replace an old example with a new one than it does to just add a new entry. If the plan is "we'll just keep listing things," prose lists are awkward so why not just keep it tabular? Zabieru (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the table: I think without it the article will suffer, as it is very difficult to gauge the extent of games that have had Denuvo protection. It is well sourced, and I feel that neither WP:TOOMUCH nor WP:NOTCATALOG are relevant here; it doesn't overpower the article, and none of the examples at NOTCATALOG seem relevant if you look at them. Without the table the article is severely weakened, the main problem with the "cracked" column was the inadequate sourcing. However would also !vote to keep the "cracked" column removed from the article for various reasons. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Jules, to clarify, are you supporting to restore the column (at least where sourcing can be found, #2 above) or "keep the table, but not the column" (#3 above)? -- ferret (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for not being clear, but "keep the table, but not the column" (#3 above)". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• I wrote this in the German wikipedia before: I think the list has no notability for an encyclopedia. Stating that a lot of games use the software is sufficient in my opinion. On the other hand, there are so many lists on wikipedia. Even a List of lists of lists. And in some game engine articles are also lists of games using it. Thus, one could also argue: "why no 'List of video games using Denuvo'?" But actually, I think it is not really important for the article or the wikipedia since it is very detailed. Also, it could be that in some years, a game is re-released and is not using that software. --Christian140 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Remove table entirely, I agree with the other arguments to remove the table and would like to add two new aspects: there is no evidence of the completeness of the table. The only sources listed are those that prove that the selected games are indeed Denuvo based but they do not prove that these are the only ones. There might be more games no one of us has ever heard of but still use this Denuvo. Therefore it is more like a "list of games known to Wikipedia authors that use Denuvo". Secondly, I think the table is even way less informative than you think. What does it tell you about Denuvo? It it a "successful" (in terms of wide spread) DRM? Is it exotic? You can't really tell because there is no comparison to other DRM. More comprehensible would be to mention the marked share of Denuvo. How many of the AAA games released last year use this protection? How many of all sold copies of all games last year use Denuvo? These figures would provide a true overview of the use of Denuvo in the gaming industry. From the table you cannot really tell resp. it is easy to get a wrong impression. --TheRandomIP (talk)
  • Lists don't have to be verifiably complete in order to be useful, though. Given the difficulty of proving a negative, there is no absolute evidence for the completeness of many, even most lists on wikipedia. Swimming and the English Channel both predate recorded history, but List_of_successful_English_Channel_swimmers is still a good page, right? Even more constrained lists like List_of_World_War_I_aces_from_Australia aren't verifiably complete. There might be more Australian WWI aces who have also secretly swum the Channel, but that's not an argument for deleting either of those lists. Zabieru (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • While you make a good point, it's also true that there is very little harm to those lists not being complete (and being upfront about their possible incompleteness). In this case, there is potential for harm in implying by omission that this list is relatively complete, and might therefore overstate or misrepresent Denuvo's true effectiveness. This very page has already been quoted in news articles about this topic. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I recommend heavily disclaiming the state of the table's completeness. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
      • A disclaimer is indeed a good idea. The one you put up also furthers my hope to keep the article in a condition that is encouraging and easy for passersby to update/maintain, so thanks! My general impression is that the list has been maintained in a fairly complete, accurate, and up-to-date condition for quite some time (Yes, even if some of the sourcing was unreliable). I don't see much reason to be concerned that the list is or has been so inaccurate or incomplete that it becomes misleading. Specifically: the hypothetical scare scenario suggested by the OP, where "some game no one of us has ever heard of" uses Denuvo but never makes it to the table, would not compromise the general usefulness of the list any more than the omission of "some director no one of us has ever heard of" would compromise List_of_Spaghetti_Western_filmmakers. Zabieru (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Instead of the yes/no column I propose a column for date of crack release/duration the product held up (with reliable sources of nfo file like predb.pw). This will convey the most relevant information of the effectiveness of the product and that too objectively. Skinchanger (talk)
  • As has been noted, NFO files are not reliable sources in Wikipedia's eyes, nor are sites like xrel, predb.pw, crackwatch, etc -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Where was the consensus reached that NFO files are unreliable sources? User Zabieru and 98.232.66.208 have made valid points above for why NFO files as a primary source are reliable. This whole thing was started in the first place due to the fact that xrel site is community-based whereas predb.pw is a private site and is perfectly suited as a source. Some sources other than NFOs that can be used - dsogaming, thenerdmag, pcgamesn. - Skinchanger 16:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
      • For clarity, 98.232.66.208 and Zabieru are the same editor (and he is me). However, you're correct that there has been no discussion here and no pointer to any prior discussion elsewhere, only unsupported claims that this conclusion has already been reached (and I guess some guy from Torrentfreak's vague recollection of an email from Jimbo ten years ago, which... isn't very convincing either.) Zabieru (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
        • WP:UNRELIABLE, for the overview. These sites are user-contributed or self-published in the main. What makes an NFO reliable? I can put one out right now on several sites. None of these sites have staff pages with credentials, editorial policies, etc. That the scene trusts them is irrelevant to Wikipedia's purposes. -- ferret (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
          • WP:UNRELIABLE doesn't say what you think it says. Those sites do not have a "poor reputation for for checking the facts," in fact the scene has established procedures for nuking releases that do not meet standards, and a long track record of adherence to those standards. (I would encourage you to try and get an NFO onto predb.pw, see how far you get. It's just a text file, shouldn't take more than a minute or two if it's as loosey-goosey as you claim. The fact that you can generate a fake NFO file and host it yourself is not relevant: I can write a fake Apple press release too, but that doesn't mean an Apple press release hosted on Apple.com is not a valid citation for some facts about Apple.) There is no stated requirement for real names or legal identities. Even more to the point: "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, etc." So: these claims are not contentious (nobody is actually saying CODEX didn't release that crack) and they are not about third parties (CODEX says CODEX did this, not that CPY or Ubisoft did). Simple, unchallenged claims about first parties are the issue here, and I contend that first-party statements released through historically-accurate channels are sufficient. Zabieru (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
          • TLDR: I think the basic issue here is that you're addressing the question of "is a predb-hosted NFO a reliable source in general" and coming to the entirely accurate conclusion that it ain't. Skinchanger and I are addressing the question of "is it a reliable source for the specific claim that a crack has been released for this game" and coming to the conclusion that, if there is no other reason to question that claim, it is. Review what WP:UNRELIABLE, WP:RSSELF, WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:USEPRIMARY say about what you can do with self-pub/primary sources. Zabieru (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I support either doing this, as it would make the table valuable and pertinent, or removing it entirely. That protection will get bipassed is an open secret. How long it takes to do so in different cases is much more valuable information than simply knowing such protection exists. The problem is coming to a concensus on whether or not reliable sources can be found for this topic. If they can be I say include it. If they can't I say nuke it. Falderol (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Remove the table entirely (NOTCATALOG) and per Axem, let Reddit maintain the list on their own dedicated wiki. In its stead, redistribute the "Controversy" section text and create a section on Denuvo's efficacy based in secondary source reporting on cracks and related commentary. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 12:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Remove the table entirely. Wikipedia is not a place for simple listings without any context. Just because a user removed the cracked column of list of games does not mean it makes it so that Denuvo "actually works", quoting from a title of a post from /r/pcgaming, or create the impression that "99% of these games were never cracked". It means that its due to a rule within this community that user generated content are not considered to be reliable sources, and I read somewhere from a TorrentFreak article that this, unfortunately, appears to be the case. Notable cases of some games cracked that's using this DRM should be documented in prose, and I would suggest it would be mentioned somewhere in either the History or Controversies section. You're better off seeing /r/CrackWatch or other wikis, such as PC Gaming Wiki, if you want to only know whenever a certain game is cracked or not, or has its DRM stripped out entirely. theinstantmatrix (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• @Falderol, Bisaknospus, Ssd21345, Majikthise.uk, Benjaminikuta, Dfsghjkgfhdg, AiSard, Loganmac, Swarm, Lordtobi, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Nil Einne, Meganinja202, Cullen328, NuclearBoyScout, Dissident93, X201, Lee Vilenski, David Fuchs, and Salvidrim!: I'd like to invite editors who have already commented on this topic on Wikipedia to do so here as well. That's you all. (Please feel free not to comment if you do not wish, and please don't ping me in your response.) --Izno (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Remove the table entirely per the others. The PCGamingWiki could collect this sort of info instead (if it already doesn't). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Remove the table entirely. Same reasons as others have stated (and that I have stated in another section). Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep everything. Thanks for the ping. Relegating good content to other, smaller wikis is detrimental to the project. I am constantly distressed and disappointed to see "sum of all knowledge" interpreted in an increasingly narrow sense. Benjamin (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Restore the column with valid sourcing Per my arguments above. Leave blank if there are no sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 02:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Remove the table entirely and reduce to prose with notable uses per previous arguments on WT:VG and here. Lordtobi (✉) 08:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Copy and paste of my comment on WT:VG: Bin the lists (or at the very least fork them) and prose it. Include the first use, the most controversial use, the most faulty implementation, the most successful implementation, notable removals of it by the developers and any high profile cracking of it (all previous suggestions dependant on reliable sources obviously). - X201 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To clarify, do you mean option 4 above, "remove the table entirely"? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of table listing games where Denuvo is removed

I skimmed all the chat - there was a lot of discussion about citing sources for cracks, and whether that column was relevant or not. Personally, that wasn't of interest to me, and the column could go or stay. But it seems that the discussion of the column has led to removal of the whole table, that listed which games had Denuvo removed from them, and when, which seems like overkill.

Just for a different perspective - once a month I visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denuvo#List_of_games_formerly_using_Denuvo If there are new games that have had Denuvo removed, and which I fancy, then I go and buy them. I used Wikipedia as an information source on this subject - it was handy at-a-glance information. By removing the whole table a useful and practical information source has been removed. I just thought I'd mention that it was a useful and reliable source of information to me, it's a shame it has been removed (just the game and date of removal, in chronological or reverse chronological order, were all I needed).

PS I'm not necessarily asking for action, I just thought it might be useful to know how some people used part of the information that has been removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.35.40.230 (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm certain there are fan wikis and websites such as reddit and PC Gaming Wiki that will achieve this same functionality for you but with a faster response time and unhampered by the need for reliable sources before being added. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

And the table is still present in the page’s history, so there’s nothing keeping anyone from taking it and maintaining it elsewhere from here on out. (A specialist wikia, Reddit, a wordpress blog, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There's not even a need to restore the table or take it elsewhere; a very similar table with much of the same information, which is held much more up-to-date, can be found in a pinned thread on the CrackWatch subreddit on Reddit (ironically, the "Denuvo version" column was recently removed from that table because the users maintaining it had trouble finding reliable sources to that information). --ThePaSch (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: thanks. I may use those sources, though they are all inferior (e.g. the Reddit one at https://www.reddit.com/r/CrackWatch/comments/avrrh6/crack_watch_games/ has no shortcut to the # menu for "GAMES THAT NO LONGER HAVE DENUVO" so requires scrolling to some mid-point in a long page of tables; plus, it is in order of game release date, so the only way to tell if an older game has just had Denuvo removed is to kind of memorise the whole list and look for changes, whereas the Wikipedia article put them at the end of the list (with the date when Denuvo was removed) so it took about 3 seconds to check - there's no alternative at the Reddit address. Again, it's not the end of the world, I just imagine I'll stop tracking and buying games that have had Denuvo removed. It saves me money. I just liked to say "thanks" and show that removing it did lead to additional sales.

Pcgamer has an article discussing cracked Denuvo games released today, but its source is from /r/CrackWatch. Which includes a small list if you want to use as reference in the future. https://www.pcgamer.com/denuvo-cracks-2019/ Ssd21345 (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't help you with a link directly to a specific table, but on that reddit post, you can click the table header to sort by the date when the games were cracked.

Not the same - a game can be cracked but still be for sale with Denuvo. I wanted a list (as Wikipedia had) which can be sorted by the date that Denuvo was removed from the retail version. That's not the same as the game being cracked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.35.40.230 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I came here to look for a list of games that had had Denuvo removed from them. Guess not. Oathed (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Requires arbitration, requesting protection status

I believe this needs a more complete arbitration and review than what I see on these talk page posts. The removal has picked up commentary on TorrentFreak now. TorrentFreak is widely held in various discussions on WP:RS as being a reliable source for copyright, DRM, and file sharing information. That the debate has now been picked up by a principal reporter for such matters leads me to request arbitration on the keep/remove debate.
as the information principally existed prior to debate on the talk page I have restored it pending said arbitration and request equally that the page be protected pending the outcome Lostinlodos (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

further tagging WP:DR and WP:CONTENTDISPUTELostinlodos (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make content decision based on reliable sources noticing whats happening on Wikipedia. Besides that, TorrentFreak covered this page on May 2nd, as noted already on this talk page. The discussion was reorganized after TorrentFreak's article, and closed a consensus to remove the table on May 9th, after 7 days (typical time period) and 4 days after the last reply (showing the discussion had ran its course). Reverting the consensus on a basis that TorrentFreak covered the topic more than a week before the discussion concluded is a bogus reason to revert consensus. If you do not like the consensus achieved here, you can try to challenge it, but that does not mean you get to unilaterally overturn the consensus. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I reiterate I see no such consensus. I see a few masterful, powerful editors, interpreting Wikipedia regulations through a very tiny interpretation. Outside of an interpretation of WP:RS that I and others above clearly dispute, there is no logical reason given as to why this should be removed. Rather than trashing extensive work in an article that an editor went through, not just the effort to create, but to also source it; why not post a reason for not including this.

Do you take issue with this being included in the article, or with the list itself? If it is the former I’d be happy to break the list to it’s own page. Lostinlodos (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe what I’m trying to question now is will moving the table to its own page be acceptable to you so that the sources and work can be preserved, or do I need to move it to a sandbox and category link it. I completely disagree with removing factual information from Wikipedia (see WP:Inclusionism for my beliefs) but I’m equally not interested in edit wars. Especially with editors with more experience than I. Lostinlodos (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no cabal of "masterful, powerful editors" who pushed this decision through via manipulation and subterfuge. The discussion is right there; you can read it all yourself. The preponderance of argument was in favor of removing the table. Splitting the table into its own article would go against the spirit of the consensus and would likely be reverted. As for your larger philosophical issue, there are lots of true and factual things that don't belong on Wikipedia. I don't think any serious editors these days call themselves inclusionists or deletionists anymore because they're just not useful lens to view the encyclopedia through. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

So are you saying that wikipedia is a not a relaible source as it is filled with lies and falsehoods and not truth and facts? As there is no good reason to hide or disregard the truth or facts other than to push an agenda or try to misinform people. Orthusaku (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what he is saying, Wikipedia is user-generated, which is not a reliable source of information. Some content is also not appropriate for Wikipedia, especially content which cannot be sourced to reliable sources. There is no conspiracy to censor. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to advise you, just like anyone else who thinks the removal of the table is an indication of anything like an agenda, to read the rest of the article. As I've previously stated above, I'm finding it difficult to understand why the removal of the table changes the light the product is described in throughout the article in any meaningful way. I'm firmly of the opinion that nobody is going to read through the article and have their main take-away be that Denuvo is super awesome and infallible, regardless of whether there may be a table or not.--ThePaSch (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the ruling is that it’s not appropriate for Wikipedia. Moving it to its own Wikipedia articles does not address the issues at hand. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Creating a compromise on the Denuvo games table list

The removal of the Denuvo table was an unnecessary reaction to the controversy regarding the cracked sources table. Whether or not having NFO sources or providing information on what is and isn't cracked is undoubtedly not information that has its place on Wikipedia.

With that being said, there is no reason as to why we are trying to avoid having the information on whether or not Denuvo exists in a game or if it has been removed. Denuvo is NOT a zero impact anti tamper software, and people should have the ability to find a list to help them decide in making a purchase. The argument that other places have this information is not an argument at all- the more places that contain information with sources can create less outdated and miss-information. Not to mention that going out of the way to remove the existing information instead of marking it as outdated or needs sources is unreasonable.

To the users that want the table removed. Why? There is no reason to not have this information on the page. It's relevant to the subject page, important information for consumers, isn't bloating the page in any way, doesn't break any rules, and can be marked as outdated if necessary. If you want to remove the cracked or not column because using NFO files are against Wikipedia rules and are not great sources sure, but leave the table containing the information about the existence of the software in games. Swordstoo (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring the sourcing issues, we've already explained why to remove the tables: WP:NOTCATALOG. Even in your statement, you say "people should have the ability to find a list to help them decide in making a purchase". This is not Wikipedia's purpose. We're not a catalog, not a how to, not guidance on purchasing. And marking the table as outdated (perpetually?) wouldn't help readers with that purpose anyway. For games that have reliable sourcing about their inclusion of Denuvo, it should be mentioned on the article of the game. A category for such might also be suitable. I myself added mention of Denuvo to Rage 2 today. -- ferret (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding useful information about a product is not directly the same as helping them decide on a purchase. I have used Wikipedia myself to help myself decide what products to buy. And information that could help a customer shouldn't be removed on the basis that it helps them make a purchase as there are other reasons for this information to exist on Wikipedia. Marking the table as outdated would help users know that while a game appears in the list of Denuvo games, doesn't mean it is still in that list and vice versa. This would help with the sourcing, updating, and accuracy of the table as users would look in more than just Wikipedia.Swordstoo (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion has concluded and the reasons were stated, the table is out. I personally appreciate that some people found it helpful, but Denuvo is hardly alone in this application of policy, many similar lists and tables for various middleware and DRM have been removed on similar basis. None of the other DRM articles had these tables either. Feel free to help appropriately populate a category and add reliably sourced mention of Denuvo to games where such sourcing exists. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we can simply have a separate page containing the list - like this: Draft:List of games using Denuvo - as there are many other pages which are just list containers... --80.180.26.226 (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. That will be immediately sent to AFD most likely. The discussions above judged the content, not the page its located on. If the content is unsuitable then putting it on a different page doesn't change anything. Such lists are routinely deleted at AFD. -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You cant at least put at end of article some type of link or table that users can usee to see related lists about games that use denuvo? the actual one dont have games that had denuvo removed Meganinja202 (talk 03:42 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No semi-protect indicator

The page appears to lack a semi-protect icon in the upper right of the page. Please add one to better reflect the article's current status. 24.196.156.115 (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 19:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Logo needs update

File:Denuvo logo black.svg is the most current version, as verified in their website.

PlayStation 5

Hello! I dont understand why my edit about PS5 being a platform for Denuvo wasn't appropriate. Can anyone explain? -Philippemorin123 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh... Nevermind... I got it... 😅 -Philippemorin123 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

For anyone checking this in the future: The software that is now coming to PS5 is Denuvo Anti-Cheat. This article primarily revolves around Denuvo Anti-Tamper, which is a different program that is not on PS5. IceWelder [✉] 09:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the confusion, articles like https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/03/denuvo-brings-its-gaming-anti-tampering-technology-to-the-ps5/ conflate the two. The difference needs to be clarified in our article, it currently only refers to the anti-cheat as being a sister product that was added to and then removed from Doom Eternal. -- I need a name (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No mention that Denuvo classifies as malware?

As a PuP (potentially unwanted program) denuvo is malware, why is this not mentioned here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.50.49 (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Because that isn't supported by any reliable source. IceWelder [✉] 06:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There absolutely is. There's no reliable sources suggesting the holocaust ever happened, so should we edit the holocaust page to denote that too? 125.253.50.49 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check our definition of a reliable source. As far as I can see, there's none on the former and thousands upon thousands on the latter. IceWelder [✉] 12:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)