Legitimate owners of Resident Evil Village (test) are at a disadvantage. With crack to bypass the copy protection, stuttering disappears, the game runs better at central points of the gameplay. Capcom is sending the wrong message.
What initially made the rounds on Reddit has now been confirmed from an independent source. According to the Digital Foundry, the crack eliminates PC-exclusive stuttering in combat. This affects two key places: Jerking usually occurs when opponents back away or hit the player. Breaking FPS limits makes the problem worse. If the Lady Dimitrescu daughters step onto the scene, this phenomenon also persists.
With the original version, the animation-specific stuttering occurred according to the analysis of the page with a 60 FPS limit for 66 milliseconds, with an unlimited frame rate it was twice the period. In the cracked version, however, the image was output evenly in the same scenes, writes Digital Foundry.
Copy protection is suspect
That the group responsible for the crack has found a solution to the FPS problems outside of copy protection is at least taken into account. At the same time there is a rumor that the pirated version does not contain all animations, which the site mentions, but neither confirms nor rejects. The scene group itself attributes the gain in performance to the DRM system: During the animations, the copy protection starts, which in this case consists of Denuvo in combination with a Capcom solution.
Denuvo has long been criticized for reducing frame rates by placing additional stress on the processor. Benchmarks based on individual games show this effect, but in absolute terms it is not always as large as expected. In many cases, waiting in the meantime helps, because Denuvo is often expanded at a later date due to its running costs.
The wrong message
For what reason the version with less copy protection is better runs, hardly plays a role in the end. Because if an illegally sourced game offers the better gaming experience, the publisher has done a bad job. As a result, it does not matter whether the copy protection is responsible or a whole team of programmers fails to fix a program error for a good two months: In both cases, the paying customer is not treated appropriately, while the publisher sends an unfavorable message.