The cracks, they don’t remove our protection. The cracks still have all our code in and all our code is executed. There is even more code on top of the cracked code - that is executing on top of our code, and causing even more stuff to be executed. So there is technically no way that the cracked version is faster than the uncracked version. That’s simply a technical fact.
Going by that logic, there’s simply no way that Denuvo does not hinder performance.
Sounds like a CEO who doesn’t have a damn clue how code works. His description sounds like he thinks every line of code takes the same amount of time to execute, as if x = 1; takes as long as calling an encryption/decryption function.
“Adding” code to bypass your encryption is obviously going to make things run way faster.
That’s also a lie. There is no way it would be impossible to remove the protection code (or parts of it) or make it not execute. That alone makes him a clown.
Not to mention that some of the cracks are incredibly lightweight in the first place so even disabling a small amount of their code would improve things. Removing the encryption mechanisms alone works wonders.
Going by that logic, there’s simply no way that Denuvo does not hinder performance.
Sounds like a CEO who doesn’t have a damn clue how code works. His description sounds like he thinks every line of code takes the same amount of time to execute, as if
x = 1;takes as long as calling an encryption/decryption function.“Adding” code to bypass your encryption is obviously going to make things run way faster.
That’s also a lie. There is no way it would be impossible to remove the protection code (or parts of it) or make it not execute. That alone makes him a clown.
Not to mention that some of the cracks are incredibly lightweight in the first place so even disabling a small amount of their code would improve things. Removing the encryption mechanisms alone works wonders.