Reverse Engineering

[Vector13]

Why not just reverse engineer the exe and cut out all the internal calls.

 

Because the current way to apply mods is very messy.

 

Maybe create a separate exe for vanilla and modded.

[Wulf2k]

Because it's easier to patch the EXE through the current method than rewrite portions of it?

 

It's not impossible to change it back to the other method, but when there's a way that works people will use it and focus their attention on the stuff they want to do.

 

Unless you're volunteering?

[dreadylein]

Well, the way atm isnt messy at all :P Why do you think this ?

Sure, feel free to reverse it, but i dont see any benefit

 

2 Binarys wont help, as you have to modify some steamprotections to get both to be launcheble, this is a line i and most of the other here wont cross

[FlyingHigh10000000]

The short answer: It's illegal.

 

The long answer: It's illegal because to reverse-engineer the exe, you'd have to break through the Steam protection, modify the exe to get the inis working the way they did with the demo, re-encrypt it to work with Steam again, then distribute the exe to modders/users. There's a LOT more legal grey-area stuff in that than in putting together a program to modify the ini in the exe, as modpatcher does. The main problems would be:

 

1 - Redistributing a modified exe. By doing that, the modder, and anyone using the modified exe, would be breaking the Steam User Agreement, opening themselves right up to being banned from Steam, with all their games gone for good, or worse, getting sued by Valve/2K.

 

2 - Cracking Steam protection/applying it to a modified exe. That's definitely breaking Steam's User Agreement, and again, opening the modder and anyone that uses it to Steam bans and/or lawsuits.

 

Now, before you go and say, "Well then that means all mods are illegal," stop. Just stop. You know it's not the same, and if you don't, you don't know what you're talking about, anyway, so stop before you make yourself look bad.(Worse.)

[FMod]

EULA should not be confused with law, although in the case of Steam they've probably made sure that most of it is in compliance.

Clauses about not modifying software files, as far as I've seen, don't hold up legally, unless that modification is explicitly to circumvent copy protection.

 

But while you are (IANAL, but AFAIK - also country-dependent, but most other countries don't even have partisan legislations like DMCA, so should be softer) legally in the clear bypassing restrictions for personal use, distributing tools doing that is definitely a gray area. Distributing a complete modified exe is illegal, but there's diff/patch which is legal (unless you cross DMCA).

 

Even if legally in the clear, one is risking lots of wasted time trying to get their account reenabled in case it gets suspended.

I think anyone who needs to go around Steam can find a way on their own, there's no need to expend modders' time doing something potentially troublesome.

[FlyingHigh10000000]

While it may not hold up in court, not many people can afford the legal costs that even going to trial with a big publisher would require. A c&d would certainly be more than enough to get me to not do something, if only because I'd prefer to avoid that kind of stress and expense over modding a game. .-.

[Vector13]

Ok, legal issues with reverse engineering.

 

I havn't really tried yet, only the straight forward approach which didnt really pan out and before i got to the more intricate stuff i figured id ask here.

 

Thanks for the answers.

[FMod]

Legal costs are a factor if you're in a compromised position or trying to extract something. If there's no law to break, there's no case for the court, so it's a matter of quick summary dismissal. Not every legal matter is a huge protracted epic case, most are very small. And a reputable company won't even bother.

 

(EULA is not law and can not be used as such - e.g. Apple EULA mistake would not give them grounds to sue, and none of the clauses on that list would give companies the rights implied; EULA lack the consideration criterion of a contract, limiting their power)

 

Anyway, that's not the point here, I was actually agreeing that this isn't a good idea. There's just no serious need for such a workaround that's difficult and potentially risky (even if the risk is limited to Steam account loss) to make, when there are simpler, already existent workarounds.

[dreadylein]

totaly agree, Fmod perfectly pointed out why its done the way we do it :)

[chimeracreator]

EULA should not be confused with law, although in the case of Steam they've probably made sure that most of it is in compliance.

Clauses about not modifying software files, as far as I've seen, don't hold up legally, unless that modification is explicitly to circumvent copy protection.

 

But while you are (IANAL, but AFAIK - also country-dependent, but most other countries don't even have partisan legislations like DMCA, so should be softer) legally in the clear bypassing restrictions for personal use, distributing tools doing that is definitely a gray area. Distributing a complete modified exe is illegal, but there's diff/patch which is legal (unless you cross DMCA).

 

It should also be noted that creating or distributing ANY tool designed to bypass copy protection, which a diff patcher would be, is also a direct violation of the DMCA and thus illegal in the US.