Pleasantly surprised about this announcement since I have been unwilling to part with the money for a PS5 right now, and I’ve really wanted to play the game.
It would be great if they were interested in making them without an always online requirement. I bought Fallen Order on sale for $4 and still felt ripped off.
It’s a DRM scheme to protect against piracy. Over the years I saw more and more shitty titles use Denuvo on release because God forbid someone steal their cash grab. A lot of titles that are of quality usually do not see the need for Denuvo.
Therefore, nowadays, for me Denuvo serves as an indicator of a potentially shitty release. They slap Denuvo on top of it so that they can pump & dump.
Maybe I’ll buy the game when it’s on sale, but for now I am too skeptical, especially since slapping additional DRM on an already DRM’d game (it’s multiplayer only and always online, unlike previous parts that allowed offline play) does not make any sense to me.
Edit: Seems the below statement was factually incorrect. Oops!
It’s a very obnoxious and heavy-handed approach to anti-piracy measures. It slows down games, kills framerates, gives users a whole host of other performance issues, and just makes the experience worse overall. It’s a product that doesn’t even seem to care to improve, because they make their money from publishers, not the people who buy and play the game. Many people hate it, and I believe it’s absolutely justified.
There isn’t a lot of evidence to back these claims up. For most users, it’s entirely transparent. You would never know a game shipped with Denuvo unless your first launch is offline and it fails to authenticate.
There have been games that had their performance impacted, but I don’t think it’s the norm. Games like Doom 2016 shipped with it and saw no performance gains when Denuvo was eventually patched out. I think titles like Rime and RE8 are usually the exception, but it’s something I always watch out for in reviews. If a game runs bad, I don’t buy it, regardless of the cause.
Denuvo has proven successful for 2 reasons:
It’s actually effective. Games go months or even years without a crack.
It’s nowhere near as draconian as what came before (TAGES, StarForce, SecuROM, etc). Most players aren’t even aware of its existence. They just buy these games on Steam and they work, which is why all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on in these threads never accomplishes anything.
So, I went back and tried to look for a source, but you’re right. Thanks for informing me! From the few sources I read, those issues were debunked, exaggerated, or due to bad implementation. I want to add that I still don’t like the idea of Denuvo (or any other DRM) on digital media that I purchase, but that’s a different topic.
Honest question here. Could it be possibly that as they improved their DRM with more triggers and methods that it has started to impact performance since 2016?
As Empress was cracking Denuvo, I wouldnt be surprised if they started to quickly add extra defencive measures compromising what could have been optimised in the past.
I don’t think so, because it has become less common over time for Denuvo to be the cause of bad performance. Doom 2016 is an early good example, likely because Id Software takes optimization very seriously. Stories of games having bad performance due to DRM were a lot more common back then. The worst example I can recall was Rime in 2017, which was borderline unplayable until the developers removed Denuvo in a patch.
Why are we still preordering AAA digital video games from multi-million dollar corporations?There is no incentive to preorder AAA video games anymore - long gone are the days of midnight launches for physical games.
Cyberpunk 2077
Returnal
Forsaken
The Lord of the Rings: Gollum
Fallout 76
Grand Theft Auto: Definitive Edition
The Last of Us Part 1
No Man’s Sky
Etc. ad nauseum
All of these games came with a half-assed apology from the publisher and how “this wasn’t their intention”. Yes, it was absolutely their intention. They released a knowingly broken game and charged us full price for it. They already got our money and laughed because they know we’re too stupid to do anything about it and that they’ve trained us well with “fear of missing out”.
How many times do us gamers need to get burned by video game publishers until we learn our lesson?
Stop rewarding and encouraging their predatory behavior. Opt out of this abusive practice by not preordering and voting with your wallet. Let them earn your money, so “they can feel a sense of pride and accomplishment”.
I can't suggest which one to get since we don't know enough about Switch 2 and it's all entirely dependent on your personal situation, but I will post this:
There are plenty of good games to play on Switch right now
Switch 2, like all consoles, will take time to build a significant games offering
According to the article, we don't know yet if Switch 2 will be backwards compatible or not
@Rodsterlings_cig If the Switch 2 turns out to be backwards compatible, buying a Switch 1 now only to buy a Switch 2 later would be a waste. It's better to wait for the announcement before making that decision.
Back in 2017 I wanted to get a Switch for Breath of the wild and Splatoon 2 but looking back I'm actualy quite happy I went with the xbox one S instead
I have no problem with a blockchain used in non-monetary context. Consider, for example, a competitive RTS/TBS which recorded RNG events or keystrokes to the blockchain, which helps show if there was lag, and helps to verify that the RNG is fair, and that both players aren't cheating. Or a game with a "Speedrun" mode, recording input as blocks, and making sure it's all publicly verifiable. Think of a Doom demo file, but encompassing all attempts from all connected players; new routes can be discovered quicker and cheaters can be outed near-instantly.
Blockchain as a concept is of great value to anything where public auditing is wanted. We've associated it to scams and money, and that bugs me. Including more aggressive monetization, speculation, and a profit motive makes a game less fun. Including a publicly auditable log of past events in a game built for multiplayer feels like it would be a value-add.
That doesn't need to be a distributed ledger, that can just be a database. The only use cases for DLT/Blockchains is where it is undesirable to have a central authority.
Games will always have a central authority - the devs - so there's just no point. Nothing is gained by decentralizing trust, and quite a lot - especially speed and simplicity - must be sacrificed.
gamerkick.com
Ważne