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.
I finished the story, quite liked it, thought it was great.
But THEN I join you where it just died and got so boring after. I had no problem “grinding” in D3, so what’s different? They somehow managed to make the core of the core game not worth doing.
I feel like they’re on the right path with uniques and legendaries in D4. Sets in D3 provided huge bonuses and took up most slots, diminishing build variety.
Yeah and Diablo III came out 10 years ago. There’s no excuse for Diablo IV.
Diablo III was (and still is) dumb mindless fun, it’s perfect at what it offers. Diablo IV is just boring, with a cash shop and paid seasons on top of it. Like oh sure, I’d love to pay to get a super nice transmog that nobody except me will ever see since the game is super dead.
I did play d3 on the first few weeks when it came out and downed Diablo pre nerf. I remember not liking the grind but that was when only DH could effectively farm, I built a full tank barb with life steal and heals
You could accomplish something in a 20 minute session of D3. You could get a rift done, maybe two, get enough stuff to upgrade something or find a better piece of equipment. You can’t get anything worthwhile done in D4 with only 20 minutes.
The release of the console version was what spured them to make the game better it was highly praised so they imported all of those features to the PC version.
Every class having movement abilities, change in the difficulty format and Loot 2.0.
Right now, Diablo 4 is much better than Diablo 3 was on release. It just lacks an endgame.
You comparing D4 to D3 at launch is just ridiculous. That’s the standard you have? For it to be better than D3 launch? I’ve seen flash games better than D3 at launch. It’s not exactly an achievement.
I noticed that too, but the decline is very gradual which shows you how out of touch the shareholders are. I bet most are unaware they are on a sinking ship.
Oh! Oh thank you, You make a very good point. It’s very late and I was thinking that people were complaining that there weren’t enough characters in wheelchairs in the last of us for a second or something like that.
Why did your comment remind me of ClapTrap from Borderlands 2? Specifically the scene where you walk along together and suddenly you have to walk stairs and he goes like STAIRS?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! How did you know stairs were my ONLY weakness?!
You have to be able to convey business value to get approval on anything corporate deems “extra”
At the end of the day, the project manager is going to have to be able to “prove” that color blind settings will translate to $$$ to the people above them, and not only that, but reliably more $$$ than it will cost to implement.
Which means first you need to know how much money it actually is likely to make, and we have actually very little data on what % of gamers that enjoy (genre) are colorblind.
So you’re already off to a pretty dang rough start.
Usually you only actually get these features when the CEO themself has buy in, like, “Oh yeah my cousin is colorblind and told me how much games suck about it, so make sure we include that feature”
Thats pretty much the only way you’ll be seeing that sort of inclusivity, when you have direct buy in to the movement of inclusivity coming from the very top at a company culture level.
These days, I just rebind buttons in SteamInput.
Using a Steamdeck, I actually prefer that than to deal with whatever rebinding UI the game might have.
There’s some things like action layers that I don’t expect game makers to ever implement.
Closer to a week or two, speaking as an actual software dev.
You have to first include the investigation into “how do we do it? What our are best options?” which is a day or two
Then the couple meetings as you go over your findings and get the sign off and approval that you can go ahead with it.
Then a couple days to implement it, write some tests for the code.
Another day for all the documentation to be added to Confluence, detailing all the above.
Another day or two for the code review process back and forth.
Another day or two for the QA testers to validate things are working.
There’s many many steps involved in going from “Idea” to “Implemented, reviewed, and tested”, and the human element in the back and forth stretches it out as you wait for people to take their lunch breaks, join the zoom meeting, the usual “your mic is muted mate” “oh jeez sorry” back and forth, etc etc…
You've never worked in software development, have you? Adding colorblind modes isn't as simple as just adding a filter and calling it a day. UIs have to be redesigned for each colorblind mode you add.
Do you have text in a menu that says "Click the red button"? Gotta change that for each colorblind mode. Also gotta change that for each language you write the game in. Can the user adjust the settings on the UI, themselves? Then you've gotta account for user-adjusted settings, too. Does the UI change itself depending on the context of things happening in the game? Gotta have alternates set up for those, too. Does a voice-acted character refer to the colors of anything that may be impacted by colorblind modes? Gotta record extra dialogue for those, too.
Each of those stack on top of each other, and take a lot more time and effort than you're making it out to be. Not saying it's an impossible task, but it's far from a 10-minute implementation. Very rarely is the solution "just a few lines of code" like people tend to think.
Or, hear me out here, maybe don’t use colors from jump that a lot of folks with colorblindness can’t differentiate. Red-green colorblindness is the most common, but games keep using those colors for puzzles instead of picking different colors.
I mean, you can always just follow reasonable contrast advice from square 1, and colorblindness won’t be an issue. It’s a pretty solved problem in the web world if people are willing to actually give a damn about it. You can have red and green text and buttons all across the screen as long as their contrast is enough that color-blind users can differentiate them.
Adding colorblind mode to a product you’ve already spent years on saying “fuck colorblind people, I don’t care about them”. Yeah, that’s not so easy.
Because half-assing the implementation is the way to go
Let’s deliver a broken version of accessibility in 10 minutes, that’s much better.
No, simply adding “colour filters” isn’t a fix either, and if that was the fix then a game wouldn’t even need to do that, there are plenty of apps that can already do that, a game doesn’t need to do anything for that (similar to how your screen warmth can change when it becomes night), reshade as an example of something that can do just that.
But thinking about the problem is ofcourse too hard, it’s easier to whine about it and act like you know how simple it is. But when we implement accessibly we do think about it, because people with accessibility issues deserve to get something that actually helps rather than the “10 minute solution”
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.
For me this is a hard toss up between Pizza King too and the Submachine series, the Submachine series is an amazing escape/puzzle style series that has a really good story
and Pizza King 2 is the best management style Pizzeria Simulator game that I have found to date, many of those management style games focus more on the cooking aspect than the management aspect but this one takes the cake with being an actual management Sim instead of a cooking
One day I need to get around to trying Banjo Tooie. I’ve always wanted to at least give it a shot. I finished Yooka Layler, so surely it can’t be that bad.
cookie clicker, that chromium dino game. I think I also did dark room at some point.
that pokemon browser game. There’s also a taiko game out there. (haven’t checked lately)
Well hell, while we’re all wishing, let’s just throw in a request for a Fallout New Vegas remaster. I would pay uncountable money for a version that I didn’t have to mod like crazy to make functional. Not holding my breath though.
games
Najnowsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.