That’s the point. Denuvo states that their goal is to prevent piracy the first couple of months while the game is hot, so people cave into buying more. Then after a certain amount of time they remove it because it’s not longer needed and will get cracked at that point.
That's how denuvo is supposed to be used, doesn't mean it is how publishers do use it. The moment the game is cracked denuvo stops being useful. Doom Eternal actually launched with a drm free exe as mistake in the first place so it's never been very useful :p
Doom Eternal did release two major DLCs though, which might explain why they’re keeping denuvo for so long. I’m going to try the game again later to see if it’s running even smoother without denuvo.
DRM is what keeps me from buying. And makes we want to wait until there are significant discounts, to not do too much to help them pay for the implementation of DRM.
what the DRM’s typical pricing structure looks like. It calls for a flat protection fee of 126,000-140,000 Euros for the first 12 months, 2,000 Euros each month following the first 12 months, an additional 60,000€ flat fee in case the game sees more than 500,000 activations in 30 days, a 0.40€ surcharge on activations on the WeGame platform, and 10,000€ for each additional storefront (if the game is being sold in more than one online storefront platform).
id has always been a crack team of developers where performance is concerned. The fact that it was possible to get Eternal running on Switch says a lot.
The headline doesnt make any sense. It crossed 230k CONCURRENT (playing at the same time right now) on steam. That does not mean that 230k players have bought the early access. They have probably more than a million or two early access players at least between xbox and pc (both steam and microsoft store) to have those numbers on steam alone in concurrent players.
If you go to metacritic right now, it’s mediocre on console (5.2 on ps5 & 5.3 on seriesX) and awful on PC (3.9). A lot of people complaining about poor performance on a 3070 and such. One of them recommends you wait for the 5090 to play this lol.
Honestly I’m not sure you can make a AAA game in a brand new franchise and have it succeed in the current market. Nobody wants to pay the big bucks for something completely unproven, especially not when there are so many huge but familiar games around.
I feel crazy but I think Mortismal and a few other youtubers did a large preview of this game a few months back? It looked “fine”. Very b-game with the potential to reach “Bulletstorm” levels of “Why did nobody play this? it is awesome”.
But yeah… if anyone is wondering why Alan Wake 2 delayed by a few weeks… this is why. And AW2 is part of a franchise by a studio that a LOT of people love. This… has a name and premise that we would expect Ice-T to be explaining to an old white guy on a cop show.
It’s actually pretty fun. The combat feels fun enough shooting spells from your hands. The world is pretty cool. Gina Torres was fantastic to see.
There are two showstoppers though. The PC performance is horrid, with a 3070 on pretty low settings with DLSS I’m still getting horrible framerates at points. The other issue is at $60-70 its a very high ask for such a short/simple game. I went the route of buying a month of EA play plus or whatever for $15 to play through it. If it was released at $30-40 might have felt a bit more fair for what it is.
I didn’t see any marketing for it until release personally, and with the mixed/negative reviews my expectations were low. So going in with that perspective, and enjoying my playtime overall was a nice surprise.
RockPaperShotgun did a performance analysis on this - long story short, a 30xx card will be good for about medium settings, a 40xx for high, and really a 4090 for ultra. According to the Steam hardware survey, that’s about one-in-five PC gamers that could start this up if they wanted to; a few percent can run it with all the flashy graphics. Combine the hardware exclusivity and the distinctly ‘meh’ reviews, get some seriously low player numbers.
It is funny to see the consumer pov change I guess. Back when crysis 1 released everyones PCs could barely play it too and the shooting gameplay wasn’t anything really ground breaking either. Yet it’s remembered very fondly today. This game kinda does the same thing 15 years later and everyone’s like ‘hard pass’.
A bit after release, it was either the developers or the publisher who called it a mistake to limit their sales to those who could run Crysis. It might have been when they were talking about WARHEAD being more accessible.
Except this engine is going to be used by every other developer, so it won’t be special. I’m guess other UE5 games will run better and look better while also being more fun.
steamdb.info
Najnowsze