The most badly cracked Amiga game

[prowler]

Originally Posted by waal

Last edited by waal; 08 July 2013 at 12:40. Reason: On topic post. Sorry for that.

Hey Waal,

Please restore your post now, or allow me to.

[n00w]

@StingRay

Originally Posted by n00w

Truth is that you can't handle people who are calling themselves "1337". But it existed and you can't change the past. I'm not saying you're bad because you weren't part of that scene, and you're probably doing very good things by yourself. And I guess you will have plenty of occasions to prove your valour. I'm not bad because I was '1337' y'know.

Hi Reinhold - if you allow me calling you by your name, as it doesn't seem secret ref your interview on Scarab and a few other public sources - that was a really abusive claim and I want it publicly recognized. Having just seen some of your works as Style and StingRay, it was really inappropriate to say "you weren't part of that scene" and it seems logical that you don't have to "prove your valour".

I just did want this made correct in the same public place so you don't have to reply, to withdraw or to justify yourself. I was upset, you were upset, things went wrong. But I don't want this to put you off these forums. Let's get back to reason.

If someone has science to share about "The most badly cracked Amiga game", you are that person. 'nuff said 'bout this.

Still if you want to read a few things about me and about the nasty old scene, apart from my gentle music and demo sides, you can have a look at these pages:
http://flashtro.com/index.php?e=foru...osts&q=128&d=5
http://flashtro.com/index.php?e=foru...osts&q=276&d=2
There's even reference to Dragon's Lair and Dungeon Master in one of my posts. I didn't know about the Rainbow Trio release when I posted this.

I also recommend you read previous posts by Foxy, Gonthar, Subzero, TCB, etc. as they are quite interesting though.

To mods: Sorry for the off-topic, but I guess that you all like StingRay as he's doing a great job helping everyone there, so I would really regret that a lame fight would deprive you of his posts.

[waal]

Originally Posted by prowler

Hey Waal,

Please restore your post now, or allow me to.

Hey,

That's fine, thanks.

I had some questions about the Dungeon Master crack and the later Psygnosis edition but they could be answered thanks to Don_Adan who refered to Meynaf's crack and linked to an interesting page. I just didn't notice his post in the last two pages.

So please remove my empty post as it's useless, if you don't mind.

[prowler]

Originally Posted by waal

Hey,

That's fine, thanks.

I had some questions about the Dungeon Master crack and the later Psygnosis edition but they could be answered thanks to Don_Adan who refered to Meynaf's crack and linked to an interesting page. I just didn't notice his post in the last two pages.

So please remove my empty post as it's useless, if you don't mind.

Hey, that's fine too. Post removed.

It's good to hear that you found the answers to your questions.

[Don_Adan]

Originally Posted by StingRay

That version I do not know, I only know the commonly available CLS crack of The Plague. Also, cracking it isn't very hard, but to make it run correctly on 512k isn't easy if you do not want any bugs to occur, in the CLS version screen memory was used for the MFM buffer IIRC which caused the graphics problems.

Ok. If no fake data, repeated data or stack space method can be used.
Then you can use next method for good crack.
Find static (code, data, sfx) memory area, I think that ~15KB is enough. Later pack this area with good cruncher (must be fitted in original MFM buffy together with depack routine). Later use old MFM buffy to store packed memory area and depacker and use static memory area as your new MFM buffy. After loading new file (new MFM buffy is used), you call depacker which depack original contents of static memory area and overwritten your new MFM buffy.

[n00w]

With permission by waal I'm reproducing here some of the most pertinent questions he had related to Dungeon Master, as it may suscitate a few interesting comments. I'll provide here my own tentative answers to these questions.

1. Was the game protection the same in all countries?
First the description given by Skull/The Rainbow Trio for German version matches the description of Meynaf's crack for French version and (a least for the fuzzy bits method) the description on the U.S. patent.
Then I'd also say yes, obviously, for money reasons.
FTL Inc. ("Faster Than Light") was a small game studio and subsidiary of Calif., San Diego-based Software Heaven, Inc. The latter applied for a U.S. patent (granted as 4,849,836). Even if the technology was only protected in the U.S., applying for a patent isn't neutral as it requires USPTO filing, but also drafting and consultancy costs (paid to agents Weissenberger & Peterson), then renewal costs to keep the patent valid year after year.
USPTO link
WIPO link

This question is also globally interesting, past the Dungeon Master case. It leads me to ask two other questions to forum contributors around here:
a/ Was any game ever released with different protections according to the different countries covered by the release? And if so, to which extent the protections could be different?
b/ Whatever the answer, could we say that the most badly cracked Amiga games were those localized versions which no one cared about to crack, and that still remain uncracked as of now?

2. What happened with the Psygnosis version? Why wasn't it protected?
If referring to the link which was provided by Don_Adan, quote from the author Christophe Fontanel was "On Amiga, the copy protection is responsible for compatibility issues with some newer kickstart versions and some faster processors like 68030. That is probably one of the reasons why they removed the protection in the latest Psygnosis release (version 3.6)."
That's the only explanation we get to read. No more details here. "Probably" isn't particularily authoritative but he says "one of the reasons".

Other reasons could be, for instance: commercial (v3.6 was released in various packages, some containing Chaos Strikes Back which is kind of 'budget' marketing), update-driven (v3.6 was notably optimized, fixed some bugs and had an end sequence, which we know nothing of the compatibility with said protection), and availability of the special copying devices which were used to create the 'fuzzy bits' on the previous DM versions. Game was already old and 3.6 was only an improved re-edit, why had Psygnosis the new distributor of the game in Europe (v2.0 was distributed by Mirrorsoft) made any additional expenses in re-implementing (or paying FTL to re-implement) the protection and using expensive materials for such a secondary release?

3. Had Psygnosis acquired the patent protection or license of it and if not, could it have been the reason why there was no protection in this 3.6 version?

In my views, there was no point for Psygnosis in acquiring the patent. One should consider that it was only valid in the United States and no counterpart could have been easily awarded in Europe due to the IP regulations here, excluding software and business methods from patentability (except in practice for industry applications, in the case of software, but a copy protection is not an industrial system).

We observe that the U.S. patent classification is derived from Physics, then storage, etc. but this is not representative enough either for a second national or regional application or for requesting any PCT extension, after it enters a national phase. The patent is normally re-examined by specialist engineers at national/regional offices as regards their own categories and legal limitations.

So, I believe that the reason why Psygnosis had not acquired the patent or license can only be linked to its sales strategy, the playability of the game (which was optimized) and the firm's low-cost marketing goals, but not to technical facts regarding compatibility. If Psygnosis had found any primary interest in doing so, the protection method could have been redeveloped to fit the most recent kickstarts/CPUs.

Psygnosis being a UK company and FTL a subsidiary of US-based Software Heaven Inc. which issued the patent. Europe was Psygnosis' main market so why acquiring a patent or patent license that cannot be held as valid in Europe?

On the other hand a special 3.6 package was released by FTL for the U.S., this one not including Chaos Strikes Back. Does anyone know if this particular version was also unprotected?

Forgetting any patent issues, the protection could well have been exploited by Psygnosis thanks to a copyright licensing agreement, which is contractually valid in Europe - as the protection can be considered part of the whole software package. But also, it doesn't come with no cost.

Later Psygnosis became a subsidiary of Sony through SCE who would have possibly be more interested in buying the patent or acquiring a license due to its more worldwide focus and its high interest in crafting and monetizing large portfolios of valuable patents. Plus extensions to US patents related to software can be more easily obtained for Japan through the PCT system as software patents do exist in this country.

But that's another story, and Sony has a long track record of using heavily patented DRM protections for its own content and through its distribution channels. Not Psygnosis, which was already getting bigger in 1992, but still wasn't a giant behemoth.

[dlfrsilver]

rework a protection such as the one used on dungeon master for newer kickstart would have meant to someone to do it. The goal was only to enhance the game and mainly make it harddrive installable. The first releases never allowed such a thing.

[WayneK]

n00w said:

a/ Was any game ever released with different protections according to the different countries covered by the release? And if so, to which extent the protections could be different?

One of the games which came to mind was Ubisoft's "UNREAL" - I believe the NTSC version used a much stronger protection than the Euro release, although I must admit I'm too lazy to check what the difference is Maybe someone else knows and can give a bit more technical detail...

[n00w]

Hi WayneK! Nice to see here someone I may have crossed in the past. Hehe.

Originally Posted by WayneK

One of the games which came to mind was Ubisoft's "UNREAL" - I believe the NTSC version used a much stronger protection than the Euro release, although I must admit I'm too lazy to check what the difference is Maybe someone else knows and can give a bit more technical detail...

That's what I've read just here on another thread, there's some info, still not enough details to satisfy all the crackers here. Maybe Galahad knows a little more on the technical side - especially the whole thing and checksums. On the business side PAL version was released by Ubisoft and NTSC version by Electronic Arts. This may explain two different protections.

Interesting stuff here:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/unreal-

It makes me laugh hard to see that the leader of The Band and Angels (Duncan aka JCS) is overtly thanked in the official Amiga credits of this game, and there is also a hello to Frédéric Hahn aka Fred/Ackerlight, musician, but also the man behind 'the French Light' and owner of the PO Box - sadly one of the three Ackerlight members who had been busted by the French police only 1.5 years before this game was released.

Apart from this, one should notice that Michel Janssens is credited for Disk Routines in the PAL version. The same was also credited for the Disk Loader of Agony by Psygnosis (Ordilogic Systems renamed as Art & Magic). Was this game also difficult to crack?

Btw I think I have already seen this name somewhere (although it looks like a very common name in Belgium) and I wouldn't be surprised if the guy were a cracker at the time. Crackers who then worked at software companies usually made a point to program the most possible challenging protections. Remember Mike, a cracker at The Band (again!), who became lead programmer of Pang! on the Amiga...

[Pyromania]

@Swordlord

If you love Dragon's Lair play the Bluray version.

[n00w]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

rework a protection such as the one used on dungeon master for newer kickstart would have meant to someone to do it.

Yes. Of course not Psygnosis, but the guys at FTL/Software Heaven Inc. Which points to my question about which protection had the U.S. version of DM v3.6, still unanswered.

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

The goal was only to enhance the game

Yes it's a fact they really enhanced and optimized the game.

Here, "only" appears a bit restrictive to me. Game companies are just companies so their primary goal must be to make money with games before anything else. We're not talking about small game studios which are often led by people passionate about making good code, good gfx, good music and satisfy themselves with their views of the best user experience.

We're talking about Psygnosis which in 1992 was already a major in this niche industry segment - still wanted to bring the best user experience according to its quality brand strategy, of course. Considerations such as terms of reselling and licensing agreements, production facilities (in UK for European releases of DM 3.6), marketing and merchandising, etc., i.e. projected revenues vs. costs, shouldn't be left out of the balance.

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

and mainly make it harddrive installable.

Possibly. Still here is what's Christophe Fontanel has to say about it in the Dungeon Master Encyclopedia: "[...] (version 3.6). Note that even without the copy protection, this version cannot be installed on HD either because the name of the floppy disk is hard coded."

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

The first releases never allowed such a thing.

Not only because of the protection, but because of the extremely poor penetration rate of hard drives on the Amiga in 1988. [Edit:] This is likely a reason why such a protection was a realistic choice at the time.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by n00w

Possibly. Still here is what's Christophe Fontanel has to say about it in the Dungeon Master Encyclopedia: "[...] (version 3.6). Note that even without the copy protection, this version cannot be installed on HD either because the name of the floppy disk is hard coded."

While this information is true, an assign can easily fix that problem. The real problem (as you linked to earlier in this thread) is the 'swoosh' program and the floppy check: http://dmweb.free.fr/?q=node/210 under 'Additional changes required to run the game from hard disk'. I just checked if v3.6 will run with only the assign and it does not. So the harddrive installation argument is indeed invalid.

[dlfrsilver]

Yes. Of course not Psygnosis, but the guys at FTL/Software Heaven Inc. Which points to my question about which protection had the U.S. version of DM v3.6, still unanswered.

The psygnosis DM v3.6 has no US release. Psygnosis only made a release for the european territories since FTL/software heaven take cared of the US territory.

They have paid to get DM source code, in order to apply all the modifications they wanted to add and things to remove

Things like these happens quite frequently back in the day (ex: mortal kombat, super street fighter 2, etc etc.....)

The US release is mainly v2.0 with the fuzzy bit protection.

[stevsurv]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

The psygnosis DM v3.6 has no US release. Psygnosis only made a release for the european territories since FTL/software heaven take cared of the US territory.

Not quite true, version 3.6 was released in Australia as well.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by stevsurv

Not quite true, version 3.6 was released in Australia as well.

Psygnosis labeled PAL releases Europe/Australasia.

Australian releases are PAL.

[n00w]

Here I again promise you a long post. Sorry for that, I know it can be boring for some of you around here. That's why I will underline a few now proven facts for these to be appropriately highlighted.

Originally Posted by TCD

just checked if v3.6 will run with only the assign and it does not. So the harddrive installation argument is indeed invalid.

Thank you for having checked. In fact I had also found the following source 2 days ago:
http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/DBA1/DungM2.html
I should have provided it earlier, it would have spared you some valuable time. I'm really sorry for that, I did not expect that you were going to check by yourself. Still you bring more credibility to these claims.

Quote of the article: "The only gross error of the game is it still
does not support hard disk installation. The Patch, which functioned with
the old version problem-free, does not run any longer. This is no
surprise, since the program was modified a lot. The disk now has
completely different files."

Discarded: the harddrive installation argument.


In addition to this, the nice review brings a few additional lights on the improvements done on the 3.6 version, and also highlights the in-depth of the reprogramming of the game structure.

Originally Posted by n00w

Other reasons could be, for instance: commercial (v3.6 was released in various packages, some containing Chaos Strikes Back which is kind of 'budget' marketing), update-driven (v3.6 was notably optimized, fixed some bugs and had an end sequence, which we know nothing of the compatibility with said protection), and availability of the special copying devices which were used to create the 'fuzzy bits' on the previous DM versions.

What we know at least is that said protection should have been deeply modified to take these modifications into account. Not only checksums of course, but also the hidden code in picture file, etc.

Also we get to learn that the game loaded all at once in memory since the earlier versions (which was cleverly brought on the table by StingRay) and it was again the case in DM 3.6.

Confirmed: the game was likely to take all or near all of the available memory.

This is also confirmed in one of the documentations, where it says that people with hard drives should consider having more than 1 Mb of RAM (or either they should disconnect their hard drive) due to the small amount of RAM which is needed by the storage device to work properly.


Now even better, the reviewer says the following about Chaos Strikes Back:
Some time after DM the extension disk Chaos Strikes Back appeared. It concerns the continuation of the DM Story. As well as the actual game, now the ability to paint the character pictures yourself exists. The degree of difficulty is extremely high! The program is recommended only for hardboiled DM veterans. 2 disks, copy protection also on the new version, which works with the new Amigas without problems. With most of Psygnosis` re-releases of DM, CSB is included, as an additional bonus, with the appropriate manual. I call that VALUE for money!

So, was that terrible protection not compatible with ECS Amiga computers? It seems not.

Discarded: protection could not run on newer kickstarts/chipsets.

Thanks to Chaos Strikes Back which used the same "fuzzy bits" protection.


So it could well have been redeveloped for the new DM 3.6 configuration, but obviously for some strategic and/or technical reasons it was decided otherwise.

Back in time I've been in touch a few times with SCSI (aka Bayernpower for those in the confidence) and I didn't know/remember that he cracked Chaos Strikes Back 100% for Betrayal so we didn't speak about this. Only thing I can say is that he was an incredible cracker / hacker / phreaker (the man from every country on earth ). Less known to everybody is that he was also one of the great underground talents in the galaxy around Kimble (Kim Schmitz) back in the 90's. If someone could easily crack Chaos Strikes Back, yes it was SCSI. And this one was done quickly, not in months.

Check this: CU Amiga (Feb 1991)
Betrayal release: 1990-12-17 (not exactly months).
Article starts with "At long last it's here". Remember, same protection, only a different cracker.

Discarded: protection took eventually many months to be cracked.

Not with a good cracker - but still true with the first appearance of the protection in Dungeon Master.


Now a few additional remarks in response to dlfrsilver:

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

The psygnosis DM v3.6 has no US release. Psygnosis only made a release for the european territories since FTL/software heaven take cared of the US territory.

That's what I corrected here (not including the PAL remark):

Originally Posted by n00w

On the other hand a special 3.6 package was released by FTL for the U.S., this one not including Chaos Strikes Back. Does anyone know if this particular version was also unprotected?

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

They have paid to get DM source code, in order to apply all the modifications they wanted to add and things to remove

That's interesting. Psygnosis in 1992 wasn't a game development company anymore but a production company, working with external studios. There's no external studio such as DMA Design or Reflections or else credited anywhere on the box and in the documentation. So where did you have the information, and which developer or studio did the job?

Checking the documentation of Psygnosis 3.6 version, pages 2 and 3:
http://dmweb.free.fr/files/DM-Scan-M...se-English.pdf
Indeed Psygnosis acquired the copyrights, and the licenses of trademarks from FTL so what you say is highly possible.

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

The US release is mainly v2.0 with the fuzzy bit protection.

Another challenge. We can find parts of the documentation for U.S. version of DM 3.6 and yes it confirms FTL/Software Heaven took care of the US territory, hence the correction I provided here. Still, how to find this US release?


If I'm correct, two games both released in 1992 look like they have not been cracked at all at the time of the Amiga:
1. FTL version of Dungeon Master 3.6 (U.S./NTSC)
2. Psygnosis version of Chaos Strikes Back - except possibly later by Meynaf.


Last words of this post are for Mai, as it looks like there is something odd in TOSEC regarding Chaos Strikes Back. I read:
Chaos Strikes Back (1990)(On-line)(Disk 1 of 2)[cr BTL].zip

... and every single file related to Chaos Strikes Back lists (On-line) as the game company.

Shouldn't it be written
Chaos Strikes Back (1990)(FTL)(Disk 1 of 2)[cr BTL].zip
with (FTL) for all of these files instead?

Thank you for your time reading this.