The clever thing here is that Denuvo is only used to protect certain functions, not the entire game. The functions it protects should be functions that run infrequently, but contain enough critical game logic that they can’t just be replaced wholesale by a cracker. I believe the game developer themselves chooses what functions to protect. If they protect too much (or protect the wrong functions) performance can suffer, whereas if they don’t protect enough, the crackers’ job is too easy.
Where did you see this? I quickly skipped through both videos and saw 5-20% difference in average framerates, 20%+ difference in 1% lows which is what makes a game feel choppy/laggy, and 5-10+ seconds difference in loading times.
And going by the techniques explained in the OP those numbers make complete sense, that's the cost I would expect for the advanced obfuscation/protection Denuvo uses.
izzydata|8 months ago
The disk space usage is weird, but 100mb to 300mb executables is irrelevant in the age of terabyte drives and 50gb game installs.
Nice to confirm that there was no way I was ever going to notice its impact.
nneonneo|8 months ago
DrammBA|8 months ago
Where did you see this? I quickly skipped through both videos and saw 5-20% difference in average framerates, 20%+ difference in 1% lows which is what makes a game feel choppy/laggy, and 5-10+ seconds difference in loading times.
And going by the techniques explained in the OP those numbers make complete sense, that's the cost I would expect for the advanced obfuscation/protection Denuvo uses.