Bushnell: New encryption chip to effectively end PC gaming piracy
by Griffin McElroy 
{ May 25th 2008 at 4:30PM }
The stealth encryption chip known as TPM will appear on the motherboards of many computers currently being produced, according to Bushnell, and will allow game developers to imbue their future titles with completely uncrackable, unsharable activation passwords. We've found that e-pirates are a resourceful lot, so the prolonged effectiveness of this measure is questionable -- still, it could rejuvenate PC gaming in areas of the world where piracy runs rampant. Lord knows the industry could use a booster shot in Tortuga.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Fernando Rocker @ May 25th 2008 4:33PM
They will exploit and crack the chip protection in less than a week.
Really.
=p
hackman @ May 25th 2008 5:29PM
nope it will be exploited before it's even put on the market lol
obo @ May 25th 2008 5:56PM
If the OSx86 stomping of EFI and TPM is any sign, it's already cracked. The cracks will start coming in at the OS kernel level, but they'll come.
I also don't imagine TPM-based DRM would float well with virtualization, which is starting to support 3D hardware. Alienating cross-platform customers is a short path to bad PR, even if the sales effects aren't significant.
Naota @ May 25th 2008 6:07PM
Ah Fernando my good buddy, you say it well.
BananaBoat @ May 25th 2008 6:09PM
Not to mention that if this ever goes live, a large portion of us will boycott any game that dares to use it, much like we boycott games using SecuROM etc. Not to mention that we'd only buy mobo's without this chip anyway. Then there is the fact that mobo vendors (and PC vendors) have absolutely no incentive to add this chip to their products (though I'm sure a large money hat could fix that, but we'll see).
In other words, this is probably a very nice ploy to get VC funds to pour in. It's certainly not (nor will it ever be) an effective stop-gap measure against piracy. Honestly I'd like piracy to stop, since it's quickly turning the PC into a second-hand platform (game comes out on consoles first, then PC, if it ever comes out on PC period. See the interview with the creator of Crysis for more details) but I'm never going to support games that try to stop piracy at the expense of privacy. Sorry guys, but it isn't going to happen
Magetto @ May 25th 2008 6:15PM
And what these companies don't realize is this is only going to screw over the honest buyers. It wont affect pirates at all.
Kael @ May 25th 2008 8:17PM
Is the solution to piracy really so elusive to them? Listen up, bigwigs: Want to know how to effectively reduce piracy? Lower the price.
Of course you don't even have to consider how many more people would buy it who aren't pirates but don't feel like blowing over $50 on a game they're not sure they'll love, just think of the pirates who consider it worthwhile to go through the trouble of finding and downloading gigs and gigs of potentially hazardous software for sometimes days at a time, run untrustworthy, hacker-written cracked .exes and keygens, and do without patches, downloadable content packs, and multiplayer, all to avoid having to shell out what's being asked for a legitimate copy. It's not something people would do if it weren't worthwhile, so make it not worthwhile by reeling that cost of entry back down to earth to compete with the free, but troublesome, dangerous, and shady back-door entrance that will always, always be there.
Yes I know: games cost tens of millions of dollars to make. Charge that much for a copy of the game, and you'd only have to sell one to make all that money back. But you'd only have a 100% piracy rate instead. Do you see the connection there? Of course you do.
Reduce the price, reduce the piracy. And make more money, too.
Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ May 26th 2008 10:59AM
> Lower the price.
And actually there are many precedents to it. In Russia, licensed games (they go under such name - as opposed to "games" what implies "pirated games") cost $5-8 compared to $2.5-3 for pirated ones. After game publishers agreed to pilot - and pilot was successful - with affordable game prices, virtually nobody buys pirate versions anymore. Exception probably the geek crowd (minority) which likes to play games in English.
> Yes I know: games cost tens of millions of dollars to make.
Expensive game != interesting game. There are piles and piles of interesting shareware and freeware games which cost literally nothing. I'm browsing occasionally lists of Linux games and there are many gems easily rivaling many commercial games - if not in design and polish - certainly in entertainment department.
Reduce number of textures, remove the useless objects from maps, remove the cut-scenes - and suddenly game costs less and runs faster. Win-win I'd say.
aristokrat @ May 26th 2008 1:40PM
Ah, the good old Laffer curve in action. It's funny how you don't need to know anything about economics in order to be a CEO apparently. Originally intended to tax markets, it applies to all price-responsive markets. Set the tax (or price) too low and everybody enters the market and pays taxes, but you don't get a very high revenue. Set it too high and people exit the market (and enter a black market) and you lose revenue because only some people are participating. Black markets are ALWAYS an example of inefficiency in the primary market, usually caused by price floors or poor governmental regulations. Any good economist knows that to eliminate a black market (and pirates are paying with their time) you have to make your primary market more efficient, but most people don't seem to care about that. They seem to think the best way to overcome a barrier to entry is another barrier to entry. Just plain stupid.
Joe H @ May 25th 2008 4:35PM
From what I understand, the chip is already on motherboards, just requires software to use it. I doubt this will do much, but whatever. I know I personally won't buy any game that tries to dictate what I can or can't do with my computer just on principle.
J.Goodwin @ May 25th 2008 10:37PM
Quite, pretty much all laptops ship with a TPM chip in them now.
Doesn't mean that any of them are turned on. The "interesting" thing about TPM is that once you do turn it on, it can't be turned off again...
Nasty shit.
cBlack @ May 25th 2008 4:40PM
Well, that means I could scope out a motherboard that DOESN'T have it.
I'm sure the violates some personal freedom. Besides, like everyone else is saying..
It'll only take like a week to get around this thing. Bushnell might doubt the crackin' community, but they are some crafty little bitches.
Fernando Rocker @ May 25th 2008 4:43PM
I always have thinking that the same guys who do the copy protection systems are the ones who do the cracks and patches.
=s
Mr Khan @ May 25th 2008 6:00PM
Why not? You get payed by Big Software firms to build encryption, then sell the techniques to some marginal piracy group, which increases Big Software's demand for your services to upgrade your techniques
It's win-win
fischju @ May 25th 2008 8:41PM
This will take months to crack, if it is used at all. The Bioshock online activation took 11 days to crack.
Beano @ May 26th 2008 4:54AM
"Well, that means I could scope out a motherboard that DOESN'T have it."
And what if new games that you want to play require this chip to run? Because that is obviously going to be the thing that will make this idea work.
Haggard @ May 26th 2008 10:13AM
I agree with cBlack - while I don't pirate, I like a bit of personal freedom.. and this just looks plain Orwellian.
aristokrat @ May 26th 2008 1:30PM
Fernando, that is like the theory that a lot of viruses are made by anti-virus software companies. Without a constant stream of viruses, you wouldn't need their constantly updating product. This has always seemed fishy to me.
BC_UK @ May 26th 2008 7:48PM
http://www.lafkon.net/tc/
Watch this and tell this chip to go to hell... seriously. This will have no effect on piracy at all and the 'legitimate' consumer will pay the price.
cBlack @ May 25th 2008 4:41PM
Damn typo. Why do I do this right when I wake up?
sZimm @ May 25th 2008 4:42PM
yes they will find a way around this. unfortunately. generally, i am not opposed to anti-piracy measures, AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT INCONVIENCE THE HONEST CUSTOMERS.
problem is, that very group is often the ones who have to deal with cd checks, license keys, online validations and sh*tty securom/starforce "malware/spyware".
the best thing software companies could do was to spend some of those "countermeasure" money on doing right for the honest customers. make attractive packaging, pack-in comics and collectibles instead. sometimes, when i buy a new game i envy the pirates who dont have to lug around all their game cd's to play on their laptops (like i have to). in spite of all this "security", they still have it easier than me. and they are the criminals right? not fair.
i predict a ton of compatibility issues and software problems with these new chips, further adding to the frustration of those who actually spend their hard earned cash and care about supporting game developers and the community around them. :(
Deozaan @ May 25th 2008 5:14PM
"yes they will find a way around this. unfortunately. generally, i am not opposed to anti-piracy measures, AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT INCONVIENCE THE HONEST CUSTOMERS."
It's pretty much a guarantee that Anti-piracy measures ONLY inconvenince the HONEST Customers. Because the pirates will have cracks to get past the protection, while honest customers will have no choice but give in to whatever the protection says.
We've already seen this with DRM, Windows Genuine Advantage, Mass Effect, and I believe even Half Life 2 had a problem because you needed to connect to Steam to activate it but the server was so busy from everyone trying to activate their game a lot of people couldn't play it for a few days.
This is the same reason why there was such an uproar about Spore and that other game nobody cares about (which I say only because I can't remember what it was) requiring validation every 10 days.
brandon_r87 @ May 25th 2008 5:28PM
I agree, if this eliminates software security like SecuROM or forcing people to connect to the internet to authenticate their game repeatedly, I'm fine with it. Deozaan, I fail to see how this chip would inconvenience honest people that badly. It won't have any additional software running that will slow the computer down, and the authentication with the chip can take place offline, as well as take only a brief instant. The worst it can do is increase costs slightly, but a chip like this can't cost much at all, and I'm sure the amount of coding to use it is minimal compared to the rest of the game. The biggest cost is probably to license the technology, which I'm sure developers would be happy to take on if they find it reduces piracy as much as Bushnell seems to think.
That being said, I do believe that people will find a way around this eventually, but we'll see how long it takes.
Sir Fidlious Wong (Justin T. McElroy Memorial Burn of the Day Award) @ May 25th 2008 4:44PM
*sigh*
This won't stop the pirates. This WILL stop the consumers. Remember the huge uproar over Mass Effect on PC? Mr. Bushnell, do you really think you'll be immune from the same problem?
Sami @ May 25th 2008 4:49PM
Bushnell: New encryption chip to effectively end PC gaming
Ghetto Levis @ May 26th 2008 6:39AM
That's actually what I read when I saw the headline. Linebreaks etc.
driven2sin @ May 26th 2008 12:44PM
that's what he really wants.. to force everyone back to Pong
Nick the Hero of Canton @ May 25th 2008 4:53PM
I have honestly lost my serial keys before and had to get them online.
Ghen @ May 26th 2008 7:23AM
And then you realized you never needed them in the first place?
Powerlord @ May 25th 2008 4:54PM
Oh yes, the trusted computing chip.
This went over like a lead balloon the last time trusted computing was brought up; why does Mr. Bushnell think this would be acceptable now?
P.S. I didn't think Nolan Bushnell had anything to do with the video game business these days.
Kevin @ May 25th 2008 4:58PM
Reasons why this will fail:
- I'll buy the board that doesn't have this chip on it
- Mod chips can override console protection, same deal for computers
- Can't upgrade my mobo without needing to repurchase every game EVAR
Seriously, there isn't a single thing that can be done to a computer that can't be circumvented. There is always a way.
CJLopez @ May 25th 2008 4:59PM
Its funny, how to retails keep thinking that is piracy what is killing PC gaming. Certainly it didn't killed PS/PS2 piracy.
What is killing pc gaming is that not everyone has the money to put their PC's up to date game specs to play em well wich have to be changed every 2 months. People rather have a console wich can play new games for the next 4 or 5 years withouth having to spend extra money (on most cases)
Fernando Rocker @ May 25th 2008 5:04PM
Well... console gaming is now comparable to PC gaming. Graphic wise, the 360 is on par with PC games (minus the resolution), and the Wii Remote provides a good method of input device like the mouse (IR Pointer).
Besides, I prefer 720p on a big screen TV sitting on a confortable couch, than play games with higher resolutions on a smaller screen.
Fernando Rocker @ May 25th 2008 5:07PM
*almost on par...
KeenCommander @ May 25th 2008 11:01PM
I can go either way. I mean something like GTA is so much better played on a big TV screen in surround sound but something like Bioshock really benefits from the high resolution of a PC and the more intuitive controls. It really just depends on the game.
Evan @ May 26th 2008 8:36AM
Come on, you cannot seriously dismiss piracy as *contributing* to the decline of PC gaming. It's very simple: if fewer people buy a game, less money will be put into making the game and there's less incentive to make future games.
Granted, not everyone who pirates a game would buy the game, but even if a small portion of people who pirate a game would buy the game, it still results in more money going to the developer, which means bigger budget games and more incentive to produce future PC games.
monkeys_suck @ May 25th 2008 5:09PM
I don't know how this will affect the consumer, but unlike what everyone says, this will be very difficult to fully crack. I know that the pirating community is filled with very skilled people, but there are some encryption methods that nobody has been able to crack yet, most of which are used with our military and government operations. Even if they are able to crack the encryption method, now that we're looking at something from a hardware level, it will most likely take some physical modification to prevent the chip from picking up some hardware patching or the chip being removed. Part of the reason why Xbox 360 homebrew is so difficult is because the software and hardware interact so closely, it takes custom firmware to get around this, and can be picked up online. Of course, the simple solution is to disconnect from the internet, but that's another area altogether. We don't know how this will work yet.
That doesn't mean that this won't be cracked. However, it's going to take a LOT more than downloading a crack to circumvent the protection. The encryption will hopefully be strong enough that it will take months or even years to crack, and by then, there will be an update waiting for users.
gamerprophet @ May 25th 2008 5:23PM
I once heard this quote on a program about piracy "I'm younger, faster, stronger, and I practice while you sleep". The point is the hackers will crack this and it wont take that long, I give it a month at best. To conclude this will be the final nail in PC gamings coffin.
Monkeys Suck @ May 25th 2008 6:02PM
I never said it would stop them, it's going to slow them and make it more difficult for just anyone to play a pirated game. Not just anyone can play backup games on a console without some knowledge or skill or a lot of money to buy one already modded. Right now, you can just direct your slightly-above average computer user to a crack site and voila! Pirated game.
tconkling @ May 25th 2008 6:03PM
This is a misunderstanding of how encryption works. When you make a secure transaction on a website (in order to, say, buy a videogame), your browser is using a method called public-key encryption to ensure that the data you transmit can be decrypted only by the website you're dealing with, and not by a third party that manages to intercept the data.
A brief introduction to how encryption works: so-called "public-key encryption" relies on the principle that it takes computers a very long time to factor large prime numbers (I'm not smart enough to really understand or explain the math behind the technique). When you send data securely to the website in the example above, your computer first obtains the website's "public key", a small piece of data that's used to asymmetrically encode the data that's being sent. This encoding is asymmetric in the sense that it cannot be *decoded* by the same public key, but rather only by a "private key" that the website doesn't share with anyone. In this manner, public-key encryption provides a safe, reliable way to allow others to securely communicate with you - you distribute your public key to the world, and you don't have to worry about the key falling in the wrong hands, because any data encoded with that key can be decoded by you alone.
So what does this mean about the sort of anti-piracy protection that encryption chips provide? This method is used to protect DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray discs (all of which have had their copy-protection schemes quickly cracked). The data on a DVD (or on a game disc that uses a encryption chip) is encrypted. The encryption chip possesses the private key necessary to decrypt that data. When you watch a DVD (or if you were to play a game protected using this method), your computer sends the encrypted data to the device that contains the private key (sometimes this is a separate chip, and sometimes it's just a piece of software), and the device returns the data in its decrypted format. There are two significant ramifications to this: one, your machine possesses the private key necessary to decrypt the data. This key might be difficult for your average user to get at, but it's available and is necessarily accessible, and once the method for obtaining it is discovered by a single person, the copy protection it provides is broken forever. Two: the data must exist in a decrypted state at some point, because your computer or DVD player needs to play it. Therefore, it's possible to intercept this stream and copy it in its decrypted state, which eliminates the need to do the decryption yourself.
Copy protection schemes like this are flawed *by definition.* They "protect" data by encrypting it, but the keys to decrypt that data must be given to the people that the data is being protected from -- that is, us, the consumers -- in order for it to be viewed/played at all. It's sort of like locking up a prisoner, and giving them the keys to their own jail cell. You can make those keys difficult to use - maybe they're hidden somewhere the prisoner isn't likely to look - but eventually they'll be discovered, and all that work you spent locking them up is for naught.
Monkeys Suck @ May 25th 2008 6:31PM
But we can't effectively say how this encryption is going to interact with the hardware and the software. How are the process, hardware, and key going to interact? Would a motherboard with a soldered chip sending the key work? All we know right now is that there's a special chip that sends the encryption key that game software is going to use to allow the user to run it. Until we know the specifics, we can't just say that this is going to be in the same boat as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.
Mike918 @ May 25th 2008 5:12PM
I think the only way to beat piracy...is that they realize...they CANT'T beat hackers!!! and make some things a little cheaper :P
Glen @ May 25th 2008 5:16PM
Cue the Big Brother conspiracy theories.
Bobby S. @ May 25th 2008 5:17PM
I hate piracy, it makes games, movies, and music more expensive to purchase for honest customers.
By the time this is fully featured on all motherboards, hackers of all sorts will definitely have sorted out a method around it.
Whilst it is a good attempt, those damn thieves are always one step ahead somehow.
Travis @ May 25th 2008 5:32PM
it's because there is greater pleasure in being the one to solve and give away stuff for free...like Robin Hood...than be the one keeping the people from having free goods...
while I think Games/Movies deserve SOME of our hard earned money, because of the expenses used to make them, I feel media is way too overprices and commercialized for us to have to be dishing out crazy amounts of money...especially movies...
Sir Fidlious Wong (Justin T. McElroy Memorial Burn of the Day Award) @ May 25th 2008 5:37PM
I'm sorry, I really have to ask, what is the basis for your opinion?
After all, games are not more expensive due to piracy. PC, the most pirated console out there, has the cheapest software. After all, when Bioshock launched, it was $20 cheaper on PC. Same thing for Orange Box. So clearly Piracy isn't driving up the price of games.
Music, meanwhile, must obviously be seeing these bad effects. CDs are obviously more expensive than ever with your average new release being $10 as compared to the $15 of 10 years ago. Likewise, with iTunes being the second largest music retailer in the world, obviously no one is buying from the heavily DRMed Apples service. In fact, music prices have gone down too.
About the only place where your theory holds up? Movies. Movie tickets have gone up... but prices of movies on average have gone down. In fact, DVD prices are much lower from 10 years ago.
I mean, if you're gonna hate piracy, hate piracy. But don't claim it's driving prices up when all evidence points to the contrary.
AndrewNeo @ May 25th 2008 5:18PM
New? Oh, please.. Real Intel Macs use TPMs to make sure it's real Mac hardware so you can't install it on other, 'regular' PCs.
Oh, wait.
That's been circumvented. For a while now.
deaftly @ May 25th 2008 5:21PM
http://i31.tinypic.com/ojk035.jpg
XLM @ May 25th 2008 6:23PM
You may want to check your facts Andrew.
http://www.osxinternals.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/
AndrewNeo @ May 25th 2008 6:29PM
Thanks for the link. I had heard about it but didn't know they weren't actually using it. My bad, then.
In any case, there's no way they'll be able to implement this safely (though, then again, since all it'll do is screw the regular consumer I guess it doesn't matter) because I know my brand new motherboard doesn't have a TPM, and despite the article's comments, I'm fairly certain that anything but a very high end motherboard won't come with a TPM.