Building your own gaming machine was always the best option if you knew about new technologies, compatibilities, brands etc. The problem I see these days is that the market is really, really saturated in everything PC. Which makes the research necessary extensive and time consuming for people who are not exactly “on the pulse” when it comes to hardware.
So it also becomes a question of “do I want to spend the time to get exactly what I need for the cheapest possible price?” versus just checking some meta-sites that review prebuilt PCs and pick one that is rated good by the community instead.
I think the right way to go is fine a good local computer store with knowledgeable people and get their help parting out and assembling it. You get some repair coverage and benefits like that, they do the bulk of the work, and you can put your own options in on anything you’re knowledgeable about. It’s what I’ve done and it’s well worth it for the small extra cost.
There was a period where you could not find the 3000 series NVidia cards unless you went prebuilt. Other than that, I agree, always built all my machines after my first 286.
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.
Well that’s nice. Games industry is not known for treating it’s employees fairly. Or even humanely. I don’t know what the situation is in Poland, but I hope this is a positive development for them.
Reports of months of crunch before Cyberpunk’s release make the image pretty clear. There’s bunch of small indies and some midsized contractor companies in Poland, but not many on AAA level. Techland, CDP and People Can Fly (I think they are independent from Epic again?) are the only ones I can think of. Oh 11bit maybe.
It should be fun. The Fanfest presentations went well and players are cautiously optimistic about Vanguard. Dust was popular, but not successful commercially. In part, that’s because it was a console exclusive that tied to a PC-only main game. If anyone has questions about EVE, let me know.
I haven’t heard anything about how vanguard will tie into the economy, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
There’s a new pirate faction-team-up called "the deathless"and several new pirate ships, and I would imagine that Vanguard players might get faction LP which they could sell or use.
Yeah the definitive edition sale came in clutch. I only had the base game and the tech priest on PS5 but now I have the sororitas and the mission dlcs all for a tenner on steam. Should pair nicely with the steam deck.
Neither Cyberpunk nor Starfield are rushing to win any awards for their writing. I’m playing the expansion for Cyberpunk at the moment and it’s average at best.
While I also dislike Epic, I feel that their going under would be a bad thing for the industry as a whole. There are only a few game distribution platforms of this size; Steam, Epic, Prime, GOG, and EA/Origin (not including Consoles). So there will be less competition and less innovation. They give out a ton of free games, and people may lose access to those licenses. They also employ(ed) a large number of people who are going to be jobless. I’d prefer they get their act together and be held accountable.
Epic has never been about innovation in the retail space. Sweeney talks a good game but it’s always been consistently out of his ass. He launched the Epic game store framing it as some sort of crusade on behalf of consumers, “Apple bad”, “Steam bad” but the reality is he just didn’t want to split money with others in the stack. I don’t blame him for that but his marketing was disingenuous and it’s quite obvious, now, that his business plan was inherently flawed.
His performative crusade against Apple has now led to 20% of the company looking for new jobs. We all stood by cheering, selling our souls for a bucket load of cheap games that, for the most part, we wouldn’t actually have paid for and will never get around to playing.
I don’t really care about EGS, I’m more concerned about Unreal Engine. If they keep dumping money into EGS exclusives and whatnot, it could impact UE investment, which would be bad for the industry.
Anything Rockstar and Sony related I’d assume would be shitty for Xbox people. The bonuses that PlayStation players could get for GTA Online was ridiculous, so this is nothing new unfortunately.
Well cool, about time. If they put offline mode in it’ll finally make sense to put it on my Steam deck. Been wanting to play it portable since I got the deck but always use it away from home and setting up a hotspot connection to play an ARPG solo isn’t great.
games
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.