After advanced analysis of vague claims  in  Prototype.2.Proper-SKIDROW,  we
   want to reply with our conclusion of things.
    
   To begin, we should have a quick look at a similar situation, where  an  EMU
   was compared with a better rebuilded crack and lead to a proper. The  latest
   target it happened with was The Dark Eye - Chains of Satinav. Here you  have
   data to compare up against, to determine if the proper is valid or not.
   Examples are given like:
    
   Load to menu with intro videos = 47 vs. 28 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )
   Load to menu, intro vids skipped = 38 vs. 19 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )
   Load new game = 16 vs. 10 seconds ( SR vs. RLD )

   On the first view it looks overwhelming. Then when you take  a  closer  look
   you should asking, "How long does the original exe take in time?".  Here  we
   have Securom as protection, what is known to slow down a game's  performance
   in  general,  with  more  protection  features  activated,  the  more  of  a
   performance hit you might see in theory. In  our  opinion  a  group's  crack
   should run at least as good as the original retail  released  exe  does.  If
   developers find it acceptable that the user has to  deal  with  Securom  and
   the longer loading times (if any) are exceptable for them, then this is  not
   a release group's problem.  When  would  you  consider  to  draw  the  line?
   Say another group found a way to make it load even quicker than  RLDs  by  a
   couple seconds, should that be enough for a proper?  GameISO groups  in  the
   scene again are not here to improve a game's general playability with a full
   release or fix any bugs that an update will take care of.
    
   In the case of The Dark Eye, SKIDROW's crack still misses the mark  to  even
   compete with the original, normally such a giantic time  difference  is  not
   the norm. And still, they refused to accept the proper.
    
   This small excursion should give a first overview,  on  how  a  good  proper
   reason can look. It has proof given, and can be recreated easily by  anyone.
   But the most important thing is, that the proper crack runs as good  as  the
   original game or even better. Your crack is the opposite,  slower  than  the
   original. RELOADED  has  even  released  games  with  Solidshield  activated
   offline by way of a keygen which is a valid release, the game plays  exactly
   like the original. RELOADED also seems to grasp the  idea  with  CRACK  ONLY
   releases like this, not a full 2 DVD pack because your claim  is  the  other
   exe is slower. If the game  did  not  work,  then  a  full  release  can  be
   neccessary.
    
   During the last few years the acceptance to  use,  more  or  less,  emulated  
   parts in a crack was basically ignored.  So  a  comparison  between  a  more  
   emulated crack like we have in Protoype 2 and, like you  claim,  a  complete  
   rebuild of the protected game exe, is not a general reason to proper.
   
   The strange thing about your proper is, that you seem to  have  problems  to
   really prove anything you've stated. Now should it be  up  to  the  original
   group that pred the game have to debunk your accusations when  no  proof  is
   provided? This is the job of the group wanting to release a proper, and then
   state found proof in the nfo of the proper release. You say, our  method  to
   calculate right values slows down the runtime and it  COULD  lead  to  false
   results or COULD crash. This is all speculation, nor even a fact with  proof
   YOU MUST provide, not us having to provide proof of false claims.
    
   When someone has read your claims, they would  expect  that  our  game  runs
   like crap and a shit storm is brewing into a complete  crash  of  the  game.
   The truth is, that we again played our release  on  7  different  computers,
   all with different configurations and operating systems after your  unneeded
   proper. We were looking for any odd behavior and logging the frame rates  in
   various areas of the game. The conclusion was, that compared to the original
   game without our cracked content applied, there was no noticable  difference
   in function or performance. Infact it didn't ever perform  slower  than  the
   original did on any of the systems. It ran as it should for  those  systems,
   both cracked and uncracked. One of the results from a machine we used:

   Original Files:
   · Time (ms) of Test: 900000
   · FPS MIN: 37
   · FPS MAX: 57
   · FPS AVG: 45.833

   Our Crack Files:
   · Time (ms) of Test: 900000
   · FPS MIN: 38
   · FPS MAX: 57
   · FPS AVG: 45.850

   Now  everyone  was  curios  to  see  how  SKIDROW's  crack  performed.  Very
   disappointing that on 2 computers, the game did  not  even  start.  It  sent
   the testers back to desktop with an appcrash. The rest  made  it,  to  start  
   the game. So there was nothing to compare  but  general  gameplay  with  FPS
   and loading times. As a result there was only an increase  of  about  5  FPS
   for three  of  the  testers.  Again,  a  very  marginal  result  as  various
   background programs can slow games a lot more than this at times.  So  these
   results should be enough for a proper?
    
   A group with a recent history of doing whatever it takes to  get  a  release
   working is now doing  propers  for  5  FPS  on  some  machines?  Wow,  thats
   something that makes you ask yourself, what were the motives  to  make  such
   an accusation and without providing proof, which is  needed  always  anyhow.
   A group that has even used unprotected exes or  weaker  protected  exes  and
   tag it as the original stronger protection  cracked  now  proceed  forthwith
   such and proper? Over the last years  basically  any  solution  which  would
   make a game  start  was  acceptable  for  SKIDROW.  Loaders  wrapped  inside  
   another dll, even different versions of an exe  were  good  enough  to  make  
   a  release.  Not  to   mention   from   the   few   but   funny   situations  
   you got caught  for  "using  alternative  supply  sources"  and  then  claim
   we don't have to explain ourselfs, only to people we believe  should  (pinch
   self).
      
   If you think you have something to reply from  our  previous  statements  we
   hope  its  informative  to  the  release.  Do  keep  in  mind  that  quoting
   comments from other sources (public web forums and whatnot),  that  this  is   
   not an acceptable form of proof, it should be  strictly  your  own.  We  are  
   open for qualified proper  reasons  and  will  be  accepted  when  proof  is  
   provided that can be recreated in such cases in  which  they  are  required.  
   Also your crack needs some addressing as it still is not working on  two  of  
   our systems.