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 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 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.
Urban Dead was fun back when I played it. Used to be on the forums a lot and organize curing centres or safe zones.
Dominate Game. Great online risk game with elo system. You could play the default maps in the browser but thier client let you play tons of customer player made maps. Sadly this one got taken down a long time ago, is has a spiritual successor as Dominate 12.
Supremacy 1914. Only played 2 matches of this game, but do to its nature it was over the course of 6 months or so. I believe they have a download client now and the game is also on Steam now.
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.
games
Najstarsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.