FLT就SKIDROW修正补丁一事的回应——开喷的前兆？

cabecabe

FLT：
SKIDROW在他所谓的‘修正补丁’里说我们的补丁会导致游戏崩溃，这是血口喷人！
我们在7台不同配置、系统的电脑上做了实验：用我们的补丁运行游戏给人一种体验原版的错觉，而用了SK的补丁，有两台压根就不能启动游戏，在三台机器上确实有大概5帧的FPS提升，但是这种随便开个后台程序就能酿成的后果，显然不能成为发布修正补丁的理由！

SKIDROW的免DVD造成游戏性能下降的传统由来已久，前不久的《黑暗之眼：桑缇娜夫的羁绊》这款游戏，RELOADED就针对他们的这一恶习发布了修正补丁：
-不跳开场进入菜单时间对比 = 47s vs 28s
-跳开场进入菜单时间对比 = 38s vs 19s
-载入新游戏时间对比 = 16s vs 10s
效果反差真是令人咂舌，像这样的情况，才称得上是一款真正意义上的修正补丁！而SKIDROW的补丁甚至比原版的时间更长，更令人发齿的事，在如此铁一般的事实面前，他们依旧矢口否认。

我们非常谦虚谨慎地接受正确的意见和修正
，如果你们要指责我们的补丁有何不妥之处，也请提出确实的证据而不是人云亦云。
另外，别忘了我们还有两台机器不能用你们的补丁运行游戏，赶紧出个补丁修正一下吧。

/TEAM FAiRLIGHT

        ▄▄▄████▄▄▄                    ▄▄▄█   ▄████████████████▄▄▄       ▄▄▄▄█████  █████▀▀▀████████████████████████████ ███▀       ▀▀██████████████████████▀ ██      ▄█▄     ▀▀██████████████▀▀  █       ▀█▌   ▄█    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▄▄   ▄█▀▄▄███                 ▄          ▄█    ▄            ▄█         ▄█      ▀▀▀    ████  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█     ▄██        ▄███  ▄██          ▄███       ▄███           ▄▄████▄████████▀       ▀         ███    ▀           ███     ▄  ███         ▄▀▀██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄  ▄   ▄█   ▄█ ▄█▄▀██   ▄█     ▄▄  ▄ ███  ▄▄ ████████▄           ▄▄████     ▄█▀ ▀█▄█ ▄███ ▄████▀▀█▀▄█ ▄███  ▄█▀ ▀█▄█ ███▄█▀██ ▀▀███▀▀█         ▄▀▀█████    ▐██   ███  ███  ███    ███  ███ ▐██   ███ ███▀  ██   ███             ████    ▐██   ███  ███  ███    ███  ███ ▐██   ███ ███   ██   ███           ▄▄████    ▐██▌  ███ ▄███  ███    ███  ███ ▐██▌  ███ ███   ██   ███         ▄▀▀█████▌    ▀██▄█▀███▀███  ███    ███  ███  ▀██▄████ ███   ██   ███             █████▄      ▀   ▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀ ███▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀  ▄███▄      ████████▄▄▄                                  ▐██▌  ANSi–JED ▐█▀██▀▄    ▄███████▀▀                                   ▄██▀  ▀█▄    ▄▄████▀▀                           ▄▄███▄▄▄   ▄▄▀▀    ▀▀██▀▀▀                                ▀█▀ █▀   ▀▀▀                                                ▀       ┌────  In Their 26th Year Of Glory, FairLight Released #1038  ────┐      ┌┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌┘                   Prototype 2 (c) Activision Blizzard                    ┌┘  └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘┘ :   Supplied by: FAIRLIGHT            : : Release Date: 28/07/2012           : │   Cracked by:  FAIRLIGHT            │ │ Game Type:    Action               │ │   Packaged by: FAIRLIGHT            │ │ Image Format: ISO                  │ ├──────────────-----──────────────────┤ ├────────────────────────────────────┤ │   DISCS: 2 DVDs                     │ │ Protection: Steam                  │ │ ────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────── │ │   System Requirements : (S)-1-phenylpropan-2-amine                         │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘   SCENE NOTES:  ============  After advanced analysis of vague claims  in  Prototype.2.Proper-SKIDROW,  we  want to reply with our conclusion of things.    To begin, we should have a quick look at a similar situation, where  an  EMU  was compared with a better rebuilded crack and lead to a proper. The  latest  target it happened with was The Dark Eye - Chains of Satinav. Here you  have  data to compare up against, to determine if the proper is valid or not.  Examples are given like:    Load to menu with intro videos = 47 vs. 28 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )  Load to menu, intro vids skipped = 38 vs. 19 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )  Load new game = 16 vs. 10 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )  On the first view it looks overwhelming. Then when you take  a  closer  look  you should asking, "How long does the original exe take in time?".  Here  we  have Securom as protection, what is known to slow down a game's  performance  in  general,  with  more  protection  features  activated,  the  more  of  a  performance hit you might see in theory. In  our  opinion  a  group's  crack  should run at least as good as the original retail  released  exe  does.  If  developers find it acceptable that the user has to  deal  with  Securom  and  the longer loading times (if any) are exceptable for them, then this is  not  a release group's problem.  When  would  you  consider  to  draw  the  line?  Say another group found a way to make it load even quicker than  RLDs  by  a  couple seconds, should that be enough for a proper?  GameISO groups  in  the  scene again are not here to improve a game's general playability with a full  release or fix any bugs that an update will take care of.    In the case of The Dark Eye, SKIDROW's crack still misses the mark  to  even  compete with the original, normally such a giantic time  difference  is  not  the norm. And still, they refused to accept the proper.    This small excursion should give a first overview,  on  how  a  good  proper  reason can look. It has proof given, and can be recreated easily by  anyone.  But the most important thing is, that the proper crack runs as good  as  the  original game or even better. Your crack is the opposite,  slower  than  the  original. RELOADED  has  even  released  games  with  Solidshield  activated  offline by way of a keygen which is a valid release, the game plays  exactly  like the original. RELOADED also seems to grasp the  idea  with  CRACK  ONLY  releases like this, not a full 2 DVD pack because your claim  is  the  other  exe is slower. If the game  did  not  work,  then  a  full  release  can  be  neccessary.    During the last few years the acceptance to  use,  more  or  less,  emulated   parts in a crack was basically ignored.  So  a  comparison  between  a  more   emulated crack like we have in Protoype 2 and, like you  claim,  a  complete   rebuild of the protected game exe, is not a general reason to proper.   The strange thing about your proper is, that you seem to  have  problems  to  really prove anything you've stated. Now should it be  up  to  the  original  group that pred the game have to debunk your accusations when  no  proof  is  provided? This is the job of the group wanting to release a proper, and then  state found proof in the nfo of the proper release. You say, our  method  to  calculate right values slows down the runtime and it  COULD  lead  to  false  results or COULD crash. This is all speculation, nor even a fact with  proof  YOU MUST provide, not us having to provide proof of false claims.    When someone has read your claims, they would  expect  that  our  game  runs  like crap and a shit storm is brewing into a complete  crash  of  the  game.  The truth is, that we again played our release  on  7  different  computers,  all with different configurations and operating systems after your  unneeded  proper. We were looking for any odd behavior and logging the frame rates  in  various areas of the game. The conclusion was, that compared to the original  game without our cracked content applied, there was no noticable  difference  in function or performance. Infact it didn't ever perform  slower  than  the  original did on any of the systems. It ran as it should for  those  systems,  both cracked and uncracked. One of the results from a machine we used:  Original Files:  ╖ Time (ms) of Test: 900000  ╖ FPS MIN: 37  ╖ FPS MAX: 57  ╖ FPS AVG: 45.833  Our Crack Files:  ╖ Time (ms) of Test: 900000  ╖ FPS MIN: 38  ╖ FPS MAX: 57  ╖ FPS AVG: 45.850  Now  everyone  was  curios  to  see  how  SKIDROW's  crack  performed.  Very  disappointing that on 2 computers, the game did  not  even  start.  It  sent  the testers back to desktop with an appcrash. The rest  made  it,  to  start   the game. So there was nothing to compare  but  general  gameplay  with  FPS  and loading times. As a result there was only an increase  of  about  5  FPS  for three  of  the  testers.  Again,  a  very  marginal  result  as  various  background programs can slow games a lot more than this at times.  So  these  results should be enough for a proper?    A group with a recent history of doing whatever it takes to  get  a  release  working is now doing  propers  for  5  FPS  on  some  machines?  Wow,  thats  something that makes you ask yourself, what were the motives  to  make  such  an accusation and without providing proof, which is  needed  always  anyhow.  A group that has even used unprotected exes or  weaker  protected  exes  and  tag it as the original stronger protection  cracked  now  proceed  forthwith  such and proper? Over the last years  basically  any  solution  which  would  make a game  start  was  acceptable  for  SKIDROW.  Loaders  wrapped  inside   another dll, even different versions of an exe  were  good  enough  to  make   a  release.  Not  to   mention   from   the   few   but   funny   situations   you got caught  for  "using  alternative  supply  sources"  and  then  claim  we don't have to explain ourselfs, only to people we believe  should  (pinch  self).      If you think you have something to reply from  our  previous  statements  we  hope  its  informative  to  the  release.  Do  keep  in  mind  that  quoting  comments from other sources (public web forums and whatnot),  that  this  is    not an acceptable form of proof, it should be  strictly  your  own.  We  are   open for qualified proper  reasons  and  will  be  accepted  when  proof  is   provided that can be recreated in such cases in  which  they  are  required.   Also your crack needs some addressing as it still is not working on  two  of   our systems.                                                                    /TEAM FAiRLIGHT  ┌┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌┘                  +-+  QUALITY, TRADITION  AND PRIDE +-+                  ┌┘ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘924e461726d984a678301222f2c1a81b