Unity Games are hackable

Yeah, there were a few of these kind of card game during that time, but I think my favorite art was on the Yu Gi Oh ones. I never really liked the Magic the Gathering cards, I found the art to be kinda boring, and the rules were too convuluted, not that Yu Gi Oh's weren't, Yu Gi Oh just had all the fun lore behind it. And I've met like one person in my life who actually knew how to play the Pokemon card game.

 

One major issue here is extraction of fonts. If someone is able to easily extract the Font program used in your game, that is a huge deal, because it opens you up to liability.

 

I'm sure you could easily fight it, no one could prove within reasonable doubt that you are trying to leak things like licensed fonts. Not to mention depending on how you render you font and build you game, it might not even be a complete set of the font and will mostly likely be a bitmap font by the end.

 

This really could be a whole separate topic. Most people don't realize that you cannot embed the font software in the game program. So simply dragging the font to the asset folder is a violation of the standard font agreement, because it then causes the Font to be embedded in the Unity game, which is an illegal usage for a typical font license . What you mentioned is true, you have to create static images only using the font and include those images in the game, not the actual font. But most people don't realize that.

 

Hmpf. After writing up this response, I finally realized this is a necro thread. Well, darn it I've put too much effort into this for me not to post it anyway.

I have to comment on this, because you are quite wrong. Look up the "doctrine of first sale".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Not all goods that are covered by copyright or trademark are licensed. That is something that a lot of companies would like you to believe, but it's not true. If I buy a physical good, then I can do almost anything I want with it. I can resell it, I can take it apart, I can modify it - almost whatever I want. Consider a book. I can lend it to a friend, and I can sell it to used book store, and I can donate it to a library, and I can write in it, and I can destroy it, and I can rip pages out of it and put them into a collage that I turn around and sell at an art show. What I can't do is distribute copies of it, because at that point I'm violating the copyright on the text.

But I have no license for it. I am limited only by the actual laws. A license is a contract, and purchasing something does not automatically create a contract between you and the seller. That's why commercial software always makes you click "I agree" on the EULA - you have to take a positive action in order to create a contract between you and the seller. (With open source software that has no click agreement, the process is even simpler - if you don't accept the license then you had no right to download a copy of the software in the first place.)

What happens without the license to software? Simple. You might buy a used copy of Microsoft Windows, but since you have not obtained a license then you can't actually use the software. But you can read the software, so fire up your debugger and knock yourself out reading disassembled code: there's nothing to legally stop you from doing so. Just don't click the "run" button in your debugger.

Going back to your original examples, if you buy a keyboard then you have bought a keyboard and no license or contract has been created between you and the seller. You can do whatever you want with it, just like any other physical good. Don't believe me? Then show me a license for a keyboard. If you go looking them you won't find one. Keyboards certainly contain copyrighted elements in their ROMs, but your license to use that is implicit and comes with no conditions other than what is mandated by law. (i.e. you can't start giving out copies of the ROM to others.)

That computer assembler who bought a CPU? He doesn't need permission to install it in a system and sell it to his own customer. Doctrine of first sale, again. He bought it, it's his, and he can resell it if he wants. Now if he's smart, he probably will enter into a contract with the CPU vendor anyway, because by doing so he might get a volume discount on purchases, and he could get access to tech support, but if he doesn't want to do this then he doesn't have to.

And for those wondering, the reason I'm bringing all this up is because there are too many people right now who are trying to undermine the first sale doctrine, and they have some of the law on their side already. Right now, for instance, farmers are up in arms about John Deere because the company is claiming that the copyrights on their engine control module software means that only they are allowed to do repairs on their tractors. Want to take it to a local mechanic or even just fix it yourself? Tough. You're violating the DMCA if you read the engine diagnostic codes.

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/

This kind of thing is dangerous and it needs to be stopped, so I just can't let the "everything is licensed" idea go unchallenged. People need to be educated about their rights before we lose them entirely.

 

I am with you, the author of the thread @Johnyyyy.
Why you guys keep saying "nothing works" etc ?
Why you don't PROPOSE at least a GOOD strong design to go with?
Why you don't explain the way to go?
Maybe a server check? an application integrity?

Please be helpful, not just empty critics.

 

sigh

What a wasteful necropost.