| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 619 |
Cracker Charts
I'm starting to get really confused now. Some diskmags, such as Vandalism news, do cracker charts with no points to any fake groups (Lamer Labels) however, Arachnophobia puts fake groups as well as proper groups on to the cracker charts. I don't think lamer labels should be added to the cracker charts, the lamer labels should represent the cracker groups, and they should get points. I think it is very silly the way Arachnophobia does the charts, and that it is right what Onslaught said in Vandalism news, regarding the charts. |
|
... 43 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Shake
Posts: 133 |
Giving no points to pd games or games without any real protection could be a decision, the result is that cracking charts can be stopped right away since there are not enough entries anymore to make it something word counting. Would miss some of the fun in my opinion. One could argue about the name yes, they are releases not cracks.
OR you change the rules to todays standard and give points to any release in general. Points can be given to docs, trainers, fixes etc. cracking is only part of it and these days less important.
And btw: there is a sence in introlinking for some of the games. Some games are suplied to groups for spreading. (no not mermaids game) |
| |
White Flame
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 136 |
Does "spreading" really have any meaning nowadays in light of the internet? |
| |
Warbaby
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 60 |
White Flame:
As I see it, the best way to "spread" something these days is to upload it on your website and announce it on c64.sk.
Mailspreading still exists, but only to keep that little subscene alive. |
| |
Rough
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1829 |
Quote: How can anyone take any of it serious? It's funny as all hell. :)))
Also, for people who take "along time" whats with looking through memory? You think someone is recracking? or what?
As for calling new stuff "cracked" , how can you call a 2 blocks compo games trained and bloated 45 blocks a crack?
And these self coded games? These are legitimate cracks too?
Get real...
If some games is PD, has NO protection at all, no more than depacking and shortening/training, than this is NOT a crack!
Its a RELEASE. Ther eis no points for these games IMHO! Like points count in this day and age anyways... its about the quality again, speed dont count! and thats my opinion!
/Fungus
Fungus, and a quote from my post two posts above yours, : "And, please, dont say some idiot now that it's not really cracking to release these games. Everybody knows it."
You are a complete idiot! |
| |
cadaver
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1153 |
Filecopyability seems to be the unavoidable byproduct of striving for compatibility (IDE64, CMD devices etc.) :) Of course, it's progress, but in some ways also a pity, considering the art of cracking..
And yes, there's another thing: if freeware programs were distributed on the net in heavily protected .G64-format, all people couldn't copy them back to real C64 disks. Hmm...perhaps creating some kind of heavily encrypted installer program that would write the protected custom data on a disk. Gets complicated. :) |
| |
T.M.R
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 749 |
Why doesn't everyone just protect stuff? Okay, so a D64 is going to be copyable but there's no reason why a bit of protection couldn't be added? So next time a game gets released, it gets mashed and protected and the crackers actually have to do some work...! =-) |
| |
cadaver
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1153 |
Hmm...but what can we do without sacrificing usability? For example, let's take an one-part game taking 1/4 of the disk side. How it can be reliably protected from introlinking?
In an extreme case (lame, but in fact most efficient regarding bypass of protections), the "crack"-intro would be a separate program that would load the unmodified game. It would be hard to distinguish the intro's "load command" from the legitimate user's "load command". So, the protection would have to be disk-based instead, and the user would be forbidden from saving anything else on the disk. Therefore 3/4 of the disk side would be wasted.
IMO, it'd be a bit ridiculous to limit the legitimate user's actions in that case, just to provide challenge for today's crackers. In the case of multipart programs taking almost whole diskside, it's a different story.. then the diskside can be considered "dedicated" to that program. |
| |
Warbaby
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 60 |
Cadaver:
You are good at making games, right?
Why don't you make a simple game with some good protection, and then challenge the crackers! I would love to see that!
|
| |
T.M.R
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 749 |
Hoth: protection isn't really the same gig as writing games, the people who know protection best are crackers...
Cadaver: it's possible to do stuff like hide the data on the disk and still do stuff like writing the highscore to it and so on; the crackers have to make it more portable, that's their job. =-) |
| |
cadaver
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1153 |
Hoth: My knowledge of protections is minimal, I was just talking of what theoretically is possible/isn't. For me it's enough to get the C64 to do what I want, in the context of the program :)
And as cracking groups are getting more & more lazy, there's also a chance that no-one would take up such a challenge. In that case, all the protection effort would be wasted :)
TMR: I wouldn't rely on cracking groups making programs portable/compatible :) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Next |
