Denuvo is always online DRM software, that usually results in performance issues (reduced frame rate, increased latency, stuttering, etc.).
In this case it appears Ubisoft avoided tried to skirt the potential bad press from performance issues by delaying the inclusion of denuvo until after people had bought the game/early reviews came out.
Are there any publishers that aren’t actively trying to sabotage their own userbase? Activision? Ubisoft? Blizzard? EA? Even Valve now going to town on shitty microtransactions and deleting CS:GO?
I guess they did it since Denuvo is generally known to cause performance issues in games.
So, reviewers gave scores on the denuvo-less game, which would have better performance, thus better scores, then they patched denuvo into it, so that they will get their drm and any performance drops will not play a role in any low scores.
But I can’t understand why reviewers can’t update their review… maybe it’s expensive for major reviewers?
Denuvo is a very complex anti piracy system for games that is pretty controversial. There’s a lot of evidence that it affects performance and it forces games that wouldn’t otherwise need Internet to be activated online regularly.
It’s the kind of thing that a reviewer would mention and that some people would use in their buying decisions. Sneaking it in after launch is going to make some people pretty mad and I’d feel used as a reviewer.
Denuvo is like having to call your helicopter mom every other minute to make sure you still have the right to play.
If the call fails, or she doesn’t pickup, or if you can’t call for any reason (maybe your in the woods and have no service) you’re instantly teleported into a dark room and all your toys are gone because everyone assumes you’re a criminal now.
In the (vain) quest to make people stop pirating, it goes so far (admittedly also comes the closest to "working") that it starts causing significant side effects. It's also apparently always online, which is a historical pet peeve for a lot of people: it doesn't add any value to the game, but it does add a buttload of possible extra ways for the game to crash or become unavailable. With no benefit to you, the player, and not much you can do about it, other than playing the games of someone who's not quite as much of a dick.
The point is, the reviews represent a game that’s not the one being sold. Additionally, it’s reasonable to believe this was done on purpose. This should be simple to understand ?
You know what’s simple to understand? False advertising. They’re not advertising the game as “no Denuvo!!” and then putting in denuvo. A completely independent company doing a review isn’t the publisher doing advertising.
Of course it is.
Them sending a copy of a game in the hopes the media outlet will write a favourable review is marketing 101.
It’s practically free marketing, so it’s the best kind even.
If the review came after launch from a purchased copy, then your argument would have had a leg to stand on mate.
By your logic, if I release a drug not mentioning it will kill you while knowing it will, I am not guilty of false advertisement even if I send it out for free knowing this will be published.
Murder sure, but not false advertisement.
If a game is being sent out without a performance limiting software with a clear plan of introducing this for the retail version, I would argue it follows the actual definition.
Quote: «the crime or tort of publishing, broadcasting, or otherwise publicly distributing an advertisement that contains an untrue, misleading, or deceptive representation or statement which was made knowingly or recklessly and with the intent to promote the sale of property, goods, or services to the public».
It’s deceptive. There is no arguing it. You seem like a bright dude arguing a moot point in to deep to accept being wrong.
I’m not wrong though, which is why I won’t accept it. They didn’t publish an advertisement. End of story. It’s shady as shit, but it’s not false advertising because they didn’t advertise anything here, let alone “no denuvo!”.
Actually this guy is correct: What Ubisoft is doing here isn’t false advertising, it’s fraud.
False advertising is a very specific thing: You say something that isn’t true in an ad or as part of your product’s packaging. Like saying your product has a USB C port when in reality it has a Micro USB port and comes with an adapter. Companies that pull stunts like that rarely have legal consequences but technically it is against the law (why there’s not usually legal consequences is because most retailers will refund a product within 30 days without any penalty to the consumer).
Ubisoft is giving reviewers a different product than what they’re planning on giving to consumers. It’s like going to a car dealership, test driving a car, ordering that model, then when it finally arrives it’s a completely different car (e.g. smaller engine, different/weaker/flawed parts, etc). Case law is filled to the brim with scams like this. It’s one of the oldest and most widely-repeated types of fraud that’s ever existed: Bait and switch.
Denuvo has an impact on performance for many games, so they artificially inflated the performance, and some people don’t buy games with Denuvo on principle, many reviewers will note that in their video.
You’re arguing over semantics. Legally it’s not false advertising but it effectively is. You’re both talking past each other but only one of you is being stubborn for the sake of it. I’d have little patience for you too.
Wait, but they already launched it without Denuvo. So pirates can easily crack the launch version without it, and only paying customers need to deal with the antipiracy bullshit? Nice, they took a pro-piracy hyperbole and made it actually real.
I’m thinking this too… like what’s even the point of using denuvo if it’s not applied day one? The whole point is to delay piracy so they sell more copies during launch week (in theory), so waiting until after day one completely ruins that since you can just pirate the easily cracked launch version.
The point is that they purposefully left (or created) bugs in the day one version that are fixed in this patch after you install denuvo
It’s not the first time they’ve done something like that, they broke another assassins creed game and leaked it to get people to buy the real copy, this is no different
If non DRM version is given to reviewers, it will leak to crackers, unless you control 100% of reviewers you give a copy. This does not make any sense.
Eh, I only meant hyperbole in terms of antipiracy affecting the pirates that had to figure out how to crack it. As a broad gesture at the fact piracy (consumption) depends on piracy (effort) to work
You’re right, according to Ubi the update on PC was ‘included in the 41.6 GB game files ahead of Oct 5’. It was a prerelease patch, not day 1.
Nice of Epic to start directly exploiting the lack of PC physical media around the same time people are talking about getting rid of disc drives on consoles.
I think the primary method of PC sales for this game is on the Epic Game Store. Yeah I neglected to consider it’s also available from Ubisoft+ or whatever but also does anyone actually use that
Epic Game Store also doesn’t have any preloading, meaning they had all the opportunity to deploy Denuvo pre-launch but post-embargo without having preloads as a loose end.
True, but will also prevent you from getting any other updates or bug fixes. This is such a scummy action for Ubi to do, I wouldn't it put it past em to pair this with some sort of game bricking.... "glitch" that needs a patch.
It was the same with lies of P… I think it’s becoming a trend and someone needs to stop it, it’s false advertising. None of the reviews are credible, they’re not reviewing the same game
Nah, they don’t need to stop this at all. This basically lets people pirate games all they want so long as the devs don’t intentionally throw in a game breaking bug on the review version.
On another note this will make for an easy comparison of Denuvo ridden game vs Denuvo removed. The Day 1 Patch bringing some Fixes and Performance gains would muddy the results a bit but I think it’s still a good idea to have a test like that. If the rumors/speculation about Denuvos performance impact are true I doubt even a Day 1 Patch would manage to balance out the performance difference.
Lesson is to make steps being even more patient and play backlogs and opt for older titles that are cheaper. Doesn’t even have to be super old. Could be just within a year. Very few games these days that are an absolute much play the moment it drops. Haven’t actually come across any of that caliber past decade, but maybe I’m too patient.
Baldur’s Gate 3 also was in Early Access for a few years so people had plenty of independent experiences to base their opinion on. The release content was more, true, but there were a lot of known factors.
If Denuvo’s claim that their DRM has no negative performance impact were true, then why Ubisoft pull this shenanigan (adding Denuvo DRM just hours before release)? Ubisoft must’ve know their game run better without Denuvo so they want the reviewers to play the drmless version.
Everyone knows Denuvo’s statement isn’t true. There are hundreds of games with Denuvo that have improved performance after being cracked, compared to the legitimately owned version. This conversation pops up all the time. It’s quite funny when pirated games have a better experience. At least until Denuvo is removed to cut cost (it’s a subscription).
Last I checked, you had to download and launch from Uplay even if you buy game from other stores. I haven’t buyed any of their games after they pull a stunt on Brotherhood anyway.
Man I uninstalled Steep from my PC yesterday. I had to download an update to their shitty launcher and then login just to remove a game from my PC. I also have ghost recon on Epic games which requires you to use the launcher to launch another launcher to launch the game.
Buying the games is genuinely a worse experience than pirating them. Fuck Ubisoft but also EA and other publishers that do this bullshit.
Yeah, at least if they’re not free-to-play. Publishers have shown time and time again that you can NOT trust them with your money. Only pay for something if you know exactly what you’re getting.
One reason I’m glad to be a pretty broke parent gamer. I can only afford to spend money on games a couple times a year at best so I have to be really patient and picky about what I do decide to buy. I end up having no choice but to wait a year or more to pick up any games I’m excited about.
I’m happy paying for psplus and enjoying the free monthly games and whatever games get uploaded there. Aside from that, my city has a great library with a huge selection of games you can borrow for 3-6 weeks at a time, plenty of time to finish them.
Still is, my dude. The “All pods launched” sound effect from the first level will be stuck in my head forever, I’ve heard it so many times. If you haven’t played Q2RTX, I highly recommend it. It’s like a fresh coat of paint on an old classic.
I’m a patient gamer so I don’t normally preorder, but I made an exception with CyberPunk as a tribute for paying $5 for Witcher 3 (which was my first game of the series, I went in blind and I couldn’t believe how good it was).
I wasn’t even mad with the shitshow but I decided wasn’t going to play the game in that state.
Fast forward a few years, the game runs almost 3 times as fast (went from 25 to 70 fps on my computer) and they fixed a lot of problems people were complaining about for the DLC release. Now it’s ripe.
Pretty much the same story here. Finally playing it now, and I can barely put it down. It’s story is nearly as good as W3, and my car doesn’t even take random hard lefts off the road for no reason whatsoever in this one. Actually, gameplay is a massive step up in general.
I'm glad to hear the game's gotten much better! I purchased the game on sale but have left it sitting in my Steam library for a little while, knowing that it is playing much better means I'll move it higher on my playlist.
Well, I meant a step up from the overall quality of Witcher 3. But, it is really smooth and solid combat with a real variety of styles/builds. I’m digging katana/guns/mantis blades/sandi. And I know the 2.0 skill revamp made a huge and smart impact on the gameplay.
The only game I’ve ever preordered is Animal Crossing New Horizons. I knew it wasn’t gonna be horseshit on release lmao. I wait until games are on sale and have been out for a while. My friends keep harassing me to buy Baldurs Gate and I’m not doing that until it has all dlc released and is on sale lol
I’m the same way but I bought bg3 because of how not asshole they are. It’s a great game and honestly worth the money. This is the first game I’ve bought at full price since games came on cartridges.
My thing is that I wanna wait until Larian comes out with all content for it. I don’t wanna get the game and immediately have to replay it because dlc came out. I’ve done that with games before and replaying just for dlc made the game feel like a chore. I’ve waited since the announce of cyberpunk’s expansion to even consider finishing the game. I plan on playing that one once I get myself a steamdeck later this year. My gaming computer became a total turd since 2020 lol.
I get that, but that game is so big, you’re going to want to play over regardless. You’ll probably start over anyways after at least 40 hours of game play. The game is really insane on how much there is and how much every choice you make matters. You could play this game for the rest of your life and I don’t think you’d have the same game twice.
Dodaj komentarz