And all that can be easily spoofed, there are free VMs out of the box that can circumvent that tech now.
As long as you know the algorithm used to generate the key (because you'll not fake every single string for every single components of the computer), and also know the exact values return by the right fields of the used components for this computer. What already mean that you have full access to the computer...
And, of course, as long as you know how to alter the drivers used by the VM in order to change the serial numbers, UID, and whatever fields (because they aren't part of the configuration), that they'll return. What mean that you have more than an average tech knowledge.
And it happen that when you have full access to the computer and more than an average tech knowledge, you absolutely don't need to use a VM to solve this issue. A script of a dozen lines and you get the key. Another script of a dozen lines, and you get the file once deciphered thanks to that key.
Plus, there's no interest to configure a VM in order to fake a computer that would stay constant in regard of its component. You don't change your computer every year, so at most you would count for two, perhaps three, installs in the game lifetime.
The only case where this would be useful in regard of the topic would be if tenths of thousands peoples would use the same VM hardware configuration... What will never happen.
Plus, this don't apply to the core target, that are mobile devices.
And, of course, if the intent is just to avoid Unity to spy on you, well, just configure correctly your IP filter. It should already only allow explicitly authorized connections, and do it at application level. What mean that Unity games can't phone home.
This being said, you are totally out of topic:
[...] Because "good" anti-fraud tech is a constant cat and mouse game with hackers that never ends.
What, with the VM part, would be a good argument,
if what they wanted to achieve was an anti-fraud tech.
But they don't care about frauds, they want to know how much they can extort. And they also don't care this much about computer installs, targeting mobiles is way more interesting because people change theirs way more often than they change their computer, and, for those who have both, you can expect them to install the game on their phone and on their tablet.
Plus, I just answered to your part implying that only a advanced spyware could achieve their "unique count" goal. And I only gave one of the possible answers.
Even ignoring VMs etc, how are they going to detect pirated copies?
They can't, and they know it. But as long as their users are dumb enough to believe them, they don't care. And it happen that John Riccitiello is already convinced that everyone related to video games (except him of course) is an idiot.
All these assuming of course, that is something they legitimately want to do, but just from their statements expecting future devs with issues coming to them with a ticket, "accurate tracking" seems very low on their list of priorities.
Have you even read the thread before entering it ? You're stating a blatant truth that everyone agree as being their obvious intent.
You seem to be confusing the PR team's response with Unity devs in my statement.
The PR team ALREADY backtracked their inital statements, and offered some studios a 100% Runtime fee waiver if they switched over, which was what led to the eventual conclusion that Unity was out to kill AppLovin, as you mentioned in the first place.
You mean that they "[tried]
You must be registered to see the links
" ? I wonder where I have read this...
Oh, yeah, in the post you are responding too, but clearly without having took the time to read more that one line here and one line there ; and even less cared to take a look at its links.
I recall AppLovin was the 3rd party to the original Ironsource+Unity merger, making a late offer to breakup the deal.
And so, what's your point exactly ?
That AppLovin wanted to buy Unity because they fear the concurrence ? Yeah, it was (perhaps just implicitly, I don't remember precisely) said in the links I provided.
That John Riccitiello wasn't happy with the decision because he would loose its control over a company that he intend to make him rich ? Yeah, it was relatively explicit in what I said.
That Unity board is full of John Riccitiello fans ? Well, the fact that he's still the CEO today (, and also the fact that he was put at this place, say it clearly.
No doubt this current move is a strong internal push from the IronSource people and the Unity C-suite board in the face of AppLovin's growing dominance but that doesn't absolve them of anything including bullying their customers into more expensive higher tiers, quiety editing their own ToS before blindsiding everyone with controversial "trust me bro" fees and forcing their inferior ad system to avoid their blackmail.
Yeah, so in fact you really haven't read a single line of my post. You just randomly selected parts you'll randomly answer too, hopping that it will make sense :/
