After *Resident Evil 9* Was Cracked, It Ran More Smoothly — Is Denuvo Taking the Blame Again?

Whenever Resident Evil 9: Requiem is mentioned, players usually expect gloomy hallways, relentless pursuits, and a rhythm that pounds on the nerves like a heartbeat. But this time, the most jarring sound in the community is not the monsters, but performance benchmark charts. A few days ago, the game's Denuvo protection was fully cracked, and then a Russian gaming outlet published test results claiming that the cracked version actually runs faster, more smoothly, and even uses fewer resources than the official release.

If you look only at the numbers, this controversy is hard to brush aside. The report mentions that, compared with the Hypervisor bypass version and the official release, the cracked version delivers about a 5% increase in average frame rate, reduces VRAM usage by 1.5 to 2GB, and sometimes cuts system memory usage by nearly 1GB as well. More importantly, it is not just “better-looking benchmark scores” — there are also improvements in CPU load peaks and frame-time stability, which means less stuttering during actual gameplay and smoother visual pacing. For a survival horror game that emphasizes tension and immersion, stable frame times often matter more to the experience than just a few extra frames.

What really makes people frown about this is that it brings an old question back into the spotlight once again: is anti-tamper protection safeguarding the game, or also eating into the headroom of players’ hardware? The report especially notes that on devices with weaker CPU performance, the gains after removing Denuvo may be even more noticeable. In other words, players whose hardware is already under strain may be the ones who feel this extra burden most clearly — and they are often also the group that cares most about optimization.

From an industry perspective, Irdeto is under no small amount of pressure right now. Cracking is no longer just a matter of isolated breakthroughs, but is instead challenging the value of its protection system from multiple angles; and the official stance has also been very clear: it will continue improving the software while keeping it running at the operating system’s user level. The problem is that going forward, Denuvo’s developers will have to find a more dangerous yet more realistic balance point: they need to strengthen protection without letting performance controversy remain a routine part of every launch.

What concerns me more is that player sentiment is changing. In many community discussions, people are no longer satisfied with “playable is good enough,” but are starting to ask: why am I paying for the official version only to possibly get a heavier, worse experience? Once this feeling builds up, it will directly damage the trust of legitimate users. It must be emphasized that the original article also clearly points out that pirated games involve the unauthorized use of paid products and carry legal, ethical, and market-related risks — there is absolutely no room to whitewash that; but if the industry wants to defend the legitimate market, the most effective approach has never been just adding more locks, but making the official version itself the best version to play.

If you are an ordinary player, my advice is actually very simple. First, do not touch pirated versions just because of results like these — the risks and costs are not worth it; second, if your CPU is not particularly strong to begin with, you should pay closer attention to future official patches and hands-on player feedback before deciding whether to buy Resident Evil 9: Requiem right away. This controversy is like a classic RPG side quest: on the surface it seems to be about a layer of protection, but what it is really questioning is the trust mechanism of the entire PC gaming market — when “protection” starts to affect the adventure itself, which side will players ultimately stand on?