Are you going to get MH:W?
Hopefully if enough people avoid buying it because of that maybe they will consider removing it? Although that's unlikely sadly...
Comment has been collapsed.
This is Capcom we're talking about, the company that still sells Resident Evil 5 with GFWL.
So yea, they don't give a toss what people think.
Comment has been collapsed.
I tried playing it back around Dec 2017, and it still wouldn't work without GFWL installed. There's a fan patch iirc, but even doing something as simple as starting a new game (if you'd already started a previous playthrough) required jumping through hoops.
Comment has been collapsed.
Resident Evil 5 was switched to Steamworks in Mar 2015. Blog post.
EDIT: This might be why it tried to install GFWL on you:
Q. Will my save data be compatible with the new Steamworks version?
A. We’ve implemented a save data and Achievements migration tool that’s built right into each game. The tool will allow you to transfer progress from GFWL to Steam. However, the game will require that you install and sign into the GFWL client since the game needs to authenticate unlocked Achievements recorded on the GFWL service. Those who wish to start the game from scratch can skip the GFWL client installation entirely since the save/Achievement migration is optional.
Note the GFWL save data and achievement migration tool will be ready after launch; please stay tuned for an announcement on the official Steam forum.
Comment has been collapsed.
you expect people to not buy the game to protest Denuvo.. like 90% of gamers don't know what Denuvo is or care.. the 10% that do, 5% don't care, and 5% will not buy the game... The backlash for Denuvo isn't nearly as much as pirate hounds will claim..
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't say that I expect people to do that. I very specifically said at the end "sadly that's unlikely".
Comment has been collapsed.
A giveaway of Divide by Sheep and your poll has no "I can count to potato and divide by sheep" option? What a huge waste of opportunity. ;)
From the consumer's point of view, Denuvo is reason enough for outrage, and to publishers, it's not really like it still does anything useful; it's public knowledge that it's been cracked quite successfully. At this point, anyone adding Denuvo to their stuff just wants to anger gamers.
Please note that I don't mean to condone piracy as a solution for DRM (lol, wasn't DRM supposed to be a solution for piracy?); I'm just stating a fact: it simply doesn't do what it's supposed to do while being a huge pain in the rear for paying customers.
But yeah, certain publishers are known for shitty practices, so I'm not surprised.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is, insane laws in USA say you need to protect shareholder money at all costs, everything else be damned. Customer satisfaction? Better projected profits? Long term growth? None of that matters, if you fail to do the above. Slapping DRM on game, no matter how intrusive, is literally a butt cover - "look, I extra protected software we sell", while not adding it can lead to technically illiterate shareholder demanding for you to be fired because "did not protect very expensive game from piracy". Guess what most decidents who aren't a major owner in the company will pick, sadly? And the worst thing is, it's not even their fault...
Comment has been collapsed.
Had no idea it works like that in US, makes me sad that we get that trash in games just because some suits can't follow the technical development of this century...
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually sounds legit enough that it saddens me. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
That's only partially true. Denuvo is much less effective than it used to be, but it still protects some games for a decent period of time. Whether that actually does any good is a moot point, but obviously the assertion that it only angers gamers is false. Most gamers don't even know what DRM is.
Comment has been collapsed.
On one hand, a DRM "solution" is only useful after its effectiveness is greater than its cost; an effectiveness that's merely above zero but below its own cost is still a net loss. On the other, Denuvo's "protection" currently lasts under a week, with some games have been cracked in two days. At this point, I severely doubt that the amount of people buying games with Denuvo is greater than the sum of the amount that would buy them if they didn't have Denuvo and the number necessary to bridge the gap introduced by Denuvo's inherent cost. This is doubly true considering that draconian DRM is a PR nightmare, especially when it gets labeled as malware, which drives people to not buy the games because of DRM, either turning to readily available piracy or ignoring them altogether. All that considered, I find it hard to conclude that it's capable of doing anything beyond angering gamers.
Incidentally, even if most gamers don't know what DRM is, which may or may not be true, that doesn't change the fact that gamers do know what a game that simply refuses to work for no conceivable reason is, and there isn't a single gamer out that that will be pleased by that, even if they don't know what's the issue behind it. Not knowing what the causes of your problem are doesn't mean you won't be annoyed by them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Jurassic World Evolution hasn't yet been cracked, and it's been 43 days (according to CrackWatch). On the other hand, Denuvo based games work most of the time. So it depends on which side of the equation one exaggerates. Corporate guys will take the side of 'for some games it seems to work, and the implications to gamers aren't that bad', while DRM haters will be on the side of 'this in normally broken easily and it's causing all kind of trouble.' While I think that DRM is useless in general, I do think that corporates understand this better, simply because they have the money and the stats. Also, I see a lot of noise in the media about bugs, monetisation, release dates, features, playability, but complaints about DRM are relatively rare and minor.
Comment has been collapsed.
You make pretty good points; I have to think my replies over a fair bit. Personally, I really like discussions like this; I hope you're enjoying debating with me as much as I'm enjoying debating with you. :D
Sure, there's a lot of buzz and fanfare and stuff on launch week and new games sell like hotcakes and it's all pretty nice. That much is true. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that people who will pirate a game instead of buying it will then be willing to buy it at launch week just because there is DRM blocking piracy. That just doesn't seem realistic. Those people have other games to play (probably a heap of them), and time is their ally. If they want to pirate it first and buy it later, again time is their ally: DRM is just going to be cracked at some point anyway, almost like there's a force of nature behind it (maybe there is? I wouldn't be too surprised! :P), and it'll take a while until they can get the game for peanuts in some cheap bundle or a flash -90% sale on Steam. It won't make people buy the game, and it won't make them buy it sooner. It will, yes, make pirates take longer to play. Even 3 months (which is doubtful for any high-profile game) isn't such a particularly long wait when someone decides to pirate something to begin with. I've been waiting for good sales on some stuff for a lot longer than that, and that's to actually pay. ;P
Saying that a game works "most of the time" is also saying that it doesn't work a part of the time, which is really bad, because the only acceptable rate of work is 100% of the time. The game not working sometimes in the name of some magic gain that gamers never see is simply not an acceptable tradeoff; it is consciously and willingly selling faulty goods, which is fraud. Also, part of the apparent lack of DRM-triggered complaints is that it's really hard to pinpoint DRM as direct the cause of a problem; you just chalk it up to "bugs". DRM is also extra flaky in who, how, and why it will affect. By contrast, things one sees more complaints about are painstakingly evident and generally tend to affect 100% of the players. A non-evident problem is by no means a small one, and while people are generally dismissive of problems that haven't affected them yet (it's just our nature to do so; we're all busy with our own issues, after all), it's a lot harder to ignore when they randomly decide to come knocking.
As far as stats go, I'll tell you a quote from my stats professor at university: torture the numbers and they will tell you whatever you wish to hear. It's really easy to take numbers and extract whatever meaning you want from them; I've seen different people extract the exact opposite conclusions from the same numbers, and both conclusions were actually perfectly legitimate (if a little forced). Ultimately, it seems to me that the whole DRM dance is simply execs' way of telling shareholders that they're doing something and getting numbers to somehow state that it's working. It's not. We all know that it's not. You don't solve piracy by inconveniencing paying users; you solve it by doing the opposite. Steam's (far from perfect) convenience has dealt a far bigger blow to gaming piracy than all the DRM in the world ever will.
Kind of old, but have a pic that sums DRM's effectiveness up pretty well:
Comment has been collapsed.
I have to disagree about the pirate vs. DRM experience. I think that people getting pirated content often have to suffer through more trouble than those getting DRMed stuff. The main difference is that pirated stuff is free, so people are willing to accept that what they download may not be what they thought the did or that the game might not fully work and they'd need an updated crack. People who buy games expect them to work.
That may be different in the tail end. After games have been around for a while the cracks are pretty stable, but DRM becomes less stable with time, as OSs change and DRM services go down. I've advocated before that publishers remove DRM after a while, given the claim that DRM is mostly meant to prevent illegal copying early on.
I think that 'the only acceptable rate of work is 100% of the time' is far from true. Most people will finish games even if they have bugs like crashes, and will even buy the next game in the series. Sure, a truly buggy game will cause backlash, but I think that game bugs are typically a lot more game breaking than DRM. DRM works the vast majority of the time (outside the aforementioned context of old DRM), even Denuvo.
The argument about whether DRM actually helps is a different kettle of fish, and I'd rather not get into it at this point. My point is basically that DRM is mostly acceptable, and it somewhat serves the purpose for which is was created (preventing illegals copying), which is why claiming that it's not useful and terrible for the consumer is mostly hyperbole. I do think that it's not that useful in practice, it does have drawbacks, and it's somewhat obnoxious in general, but I just don't think it's as bad in practice as DRM haters make it to be.
Comment has been collapsed.
late for the reply
I think that people getting pirated content often have to suffer through more trouble than those getting DRMed stuff.
Based on my experience with this, I can confidently tell you that that would be the exception, not the rule. Funny in all the wrong ways, I know. But (unfortunately) still true. When DRM wasn't draconian annoyance, it was a lot easier to buy things rather than pirate them; while piracy is decidedly easier than ever before, DRM has played an even larger role by making things harder on users. Most people by far just want the ways that jump through fewer hoops. That's why they move from piracy to Steam, Spotify and Netflix: because, by and large, when you're using those services, it all just works. Until something like Denuvo comes up and for whatever reason it doesn't just work anymore, and lo and behold, piracy is an attractive option again. GabeN, praised be his name, says that piracy is a service issue; this is the evidence that he's quite right.
I own a game that simply won't run if it's not connected to the internet. Pretty smart move for a game that's essentially single-player only and has no multiplayer facilities (such as rank/ladder), huh? Always nice to know that the folks running a pirated version of it can play it even on Mars but I can't move away from the freaking cables. A friend has bought a game on Steam over a month ago and he still hasn't received the key to activate it with the publisher, so he can't play it. At least he must feel safe knowing that his trusted pirated copy that has never given him trouble won't cease to work any time soon. I'm sure neither he nor I would feel very compelled to keep buying games if those things were the norm; they aren't simply because people screaming against DRM has kept the industry mostly unable to do worse than it already does. We ultimately circle back to GabeN's words.
As for bugs, they're a side effect of programming; they're inherent to every software. When you buy a game, you inherently accept that it will have some bugs (every software does; it's almost a law of nature). You probably don't accept bugs so bad or so numerous as to break the game (at least I don't), but bugs are a still part of the game. I can't stress enough how important a point that is. DRM is not a part of the game, and issues with DRM are not issues with the game; they are issues with a system that is not a part of the game. Being a paying customer implies accepting issues with game bugs, but it does not imply accepting issues with DRM getting in your way. The distinction is huge; conflating bugs with DRM or comparing them like there's a similarity is a mistake.
it somewhat serves the purpose for which is was created (preventing illegals copying)
No, DRM's purpose is not to prevent illegal copies; that is a fallacy that DRM proponents came up with many years ago and which people repeat without realizing (just so it's clear, I'm not saying it's your fault; I'm saying you've been deceived by it). DRM's purpose is to increase sales. The difference may seem small, but it's huge. This is a hyperbolic argument here, but if you will release software and you don't want illegal copies, just release it as free and open source software, and all copies will be legal. What publishers want is to sell more copies, in at least sufficient number to pay for DRM. This doesn't happen for reasons I've already outlined, but to quickly rehash them: nobody will buy a game because it has DRM; they'll buy a game because they'd buy it anyway, and those who would pirate it without DRM will pirate it with DRM. If pirates must wait to have a game because of DRM, then wait they will, and they'll just play something else instead while they wait; time is their ally. DRM fails to increase sales beyond its own cost (in fact, it probably decreases the overall number of sales), ergo it doesn't do what it's supposed to. That it postpones pirates' ability to play pirated copies (and by not much) may be true, but it's irrelevant; publishers care about sales, not about number of playing pirates.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why they move from piracy to Steam, Spotify and Netflix: because, by and large, when you're using those services, it all just works. Until something like Denuvo comes up and for whatever reason it doesn't just work anymore, and lo and behold, piracy is an attractive option again.
Then why are so many games with transparent DRM available for illegal download? And why are DRM-free games available for illegal download? The 'it's all DRM's fault' sounds like bullshit to me.
The reason Steam, Netflix etc. are an alternative to piracy is not only because they largely work, but because they're cheap. A lot of people moved to Steam from piracy not just because it's convenient, but because prices in their region were lowered considerably. Steam didn't replace piracy before that. Piracy is largely a matter of price: people don't want to pay, so they take. DRM is just one of the excuses such people use.
BTW, Netflix is the worst possible DRM, one that where you stop paying you lose access to all content. Not only that, it sometimes doesn't work, sometimes quality is lower, but people still accept it, because they get a lot of content for a pretty low price.
No, DRM's purpose is not to prevent illegal copies; that is a fallacy that DRM proponents came up with many years ago and which people repeat without realizing (just so it's clear, I'm not saying it's your fault; I'm saying you've been deceived by it). DRM's purpose is to increase sales.
That's more hyperbole, as you later say yourself. DRM's purpose is to maintain copyright. It's naturally assumed that maintaining copyright will help sell more. Copyright is in large part about a creator's ability to make money, but it's not only that, it's also about control. I'd say that's a part of the reason for DRM too, the wish to retain control of a product, regardless of whether in reality piracy might be helpful for sales.
Your argument is similar to claiming that fines for traffic violations are to make money. They are to an extent, but the underlying reason is to keep people acting within the law.
Your arguments are classic piracy side arguments, which in my experience are far from reality. Most people I know who pirate, and my own piracy many years ago (or, for this matter, stuff that I still watch on YouTube which is copyrighted), was based on these principles: it's socially acceptable, and it allow you to play/watch/listen to things which you don't feel are worth the price. It's disregard of copyright not out of principle but because it's easy. It's something that people don't really think about any more than meat eaters think about the animals getting killed for that. It's only when put to the test that people try to justify their reasoning, and then they come up with they kind of 'reasoning' that you give. And that reasoning is bullshit.
Granted, people do use piracy to sample, or demo, or whatever you want to call it, and inconvenience can push people to go to more convenient pirated content, but that's far from a main reason. Most people just want stuff they're not willing to pay for, or, in many cases, just do it because 'everyone is doing it' (that is, someone in their circle of friends introduced them to it).
Comment has been collapsed.
For a variety of reasons, I don't think this debate is going anywhere; the best choice now seems to be to just disengage. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm just replying here (instead of quietly moving on) because I don't like leaving people in a vacuum. Apologies if you were expecting further arguments like in our latest messages.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for replying. I can see that you're strongly against DRM, which certainly makes it hard to discuss things. I'm also against DRM, but like most things, I have a more balanced view, and I think that compromises can get us farther than fighting windmills. I'd be perfectly happy if companies put DRM on games and dropped it after sales taper off.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair, although I'm against it as a matter of principle, I can accept forms that don't go around doing what they shouldn't, and I draw a line concerning what's acceptable and stick to it. Perhaps I should clarify this position a little with some background information.
Having grown up in a country that still has a few dictatorships in living memory (not even just one) and offers fairly little support for the weak, I feel very clearly on the skin of my neck that there's nothing quite more dangerous than allowing an invasion of one's rights without a fight, simply because that invites further violations. If we look back, DRM that bothers you more than once would have been a source of outcry ten years ago, and today nobody really seems to mind it. When people first tried always-online DRM, there was a meltdown and everything was fire, but I wonder how long it'll take for that to change and people to accept always-online DRM as okay. I don't know when it'll become acceptable, but if we're not vigilant, at some point it will inevitably happen, and then it'll be too late. I am greatly skeptic of changes that increase the powers third parties have over private citizens' rights, because they nearly always spell trouble. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but if history tells us anything, 'tis that the pessimists tend to be right more often.
To clarify further, here are some things that I find unacceptable for DRM to do: getting in the way of playing a game I paid for in any way or form; producing a significant performance impact; snooping around my stuff to then phone home talking about my habits; and so on. Even if you don't necessarily agree that those are all unacceptable things for DRM to do, I hope you can at least agree that the view that they are unacceptable is reasonable. If DRM achieves its purpose of verifying that I actually bought the game without doing unacceptable things, I can accept its presence. The problem seems to be that DRM that does exactly what I find unacceptable has become, if not yet the norm (hopefully never the norm), then at least too commonplace for comfort. And circling back to my original post, people's bone with Denuvo, in the simplest terms, is that it does things that they consider unacceptable.
Comment has been collapsed.
Regarding 'always online', I think that the reason many people find it acceptable is that a lot of people simply expect to always be online. If they aren't, they'd feel that there's something fundamentally wrong with their lives that goes way beyond not being to run games. Last year a survey showed that 73% of US households have Netflix. Assuming that's accurate, this means that most people in the US are dependent on a form of entertainment which only works when they have a good internet connection.
Granted this may not be the case in every country and every area, but even if it isn't, if most gamers expect an online connection for other reasons, it will be hard to demand that games don't feature it. I also think that considering that the most successful games are those which are purely online or have a major online component, it makes it harder to argue that requiring an online connection is a problem, even if for many games it's completely unnecessary.
I do agree that it's unacceptable for DRM to cause significant slowdowns. It's also unacceptable to install special device drivers or other things which compromise the OS, as some DRM schemes have done. Snooping around shouldn't be part of DRM at all, not sure if it is. Does Denuvo do this? Can you supply a link to an article about this?
In practice, I think that the best way to fight DRM is to buy on GOG. As long as games on GOG have good sales they'd be able to convince more companies to publish DRM-free.
As for 'allowing an invasion of one's rights without a fight', I think that there's a lot of need for caution here, regarding what's a right and what fights are important. Frankly I'm more worried about infinite copyright and DMCA takedowns (which are prone for abuse) than about DRM.
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps a part of the problem is that the people who matter the most to publishers, namely early buyers, tend to be exactly the ones who can reasonably expect to be always online. If you're on such a low income (or from such an overall poor area) that you're not expecting to be always online, odds are you'll buy older games instead; it's not like people who can't afford full-price games can afford the hardware to play the new stuff anyway. Consider this: I'm not sure how old this survey is, but I recall hearing that over half of the households in Brazil have no internet link.
Snooping around shouldn't be part of DRM at all, not sure if it is. Does Denuvo do this? Can you supply a link to an article about this?
I'm not sure about game DRM and I haven't heard of Denuvo doing it, but you might remember a major scandal concerning rootkit and spyware, courtesy of a certain recording label. TL;DR it was ugly.
Frankly I'm more worried about infinite copyright and DMCA takedowns (which are prone for abuse) than about DRM.
I'd say that each of those problems is worrisome and merits attention, but I do agree that DRM would be the least important of them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess we're kind of on the same page. As I said before, I think that removing DRM after a while would be a good compromise. It will let publishers feel that their game is somewhat protected in the period of most sales, and then let those who buy once price is lower get the game and be able to play it without being forced online.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally I also feel that this would be helpful. In fact, if that became the norm, I would expect the removal of DRM to be followed by a (small) spike in sales.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or buy a PS4, its only twice the cost of MHW Deluxe x)
Comment has been collapsed.
Meh, I tend to not pre-order, especially if it's a 60€ game from a big studio (I actually trust smaller dev studios nowadays). There's still a possibility that the port is nigh unplayable on PC, so I'll wait til day 1-2, when user releases are out before buying it.
Comment has been collapsed.
port is neigh unplayable
nigh.
There are no horses involved.
Comment has been collapsed.
preordered MH, i really hope that Voxi will crack it fast, and CApcom will have brains to delete it after game was cracked.
Comment has been collapsed.
Voxi have been arrested(or home arrested) for cracking games so...
Comment has been collapsed.
no reason to care about Denuvo, I own numerous games with it and have had no issues.. The few games I own with it run fine.. The minority voices who hate Denuvo will spew their nonsense, but most will still just buy the game on their smurf accounts or just pirate the eventual cracked release.. Hopefully it never gets cracked,, I hate pirates more than I hate DRM which doesn't affect me at all..
Comment has been collapsed.
due to pirates, you can find films/some other stuff that without them would be lost forever, so think about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
and it's also partially to blame for Always online DRM, micro transactions, season passes, etc etc etc etc.. So sometimes you gotta pick your poison..
Comment has been collapsed.
lol, big misconception, pirating does not affect sales.
Comment has been collapsed.
It does, its just there isn't enough conclusive evidence
Comment has been collapsed.
It probably does to a degree. Personally, I pirated a lot of games when I was younger, because I had no money to buy them and as a teenager I didn't really care about much. Now, I sort of feel responsible for the jobs of the developers who create the game, so I like to support them even if the game is free, if I think they're doing a good job (e.g. Path of Exile developers).
Comment has been collapsed.
So you are right but don't have prof mkay.
CD red project with GOG and TW3 sales disagree with you, GOT producers disagree with you, they got free publicity they said.
As a mater of fact TW3 sold in 2017 on PC as much PS4 & Xbox combined, you know the land of piracy,GOG and Steam.
https://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1-1.jpg
You know what those products have in common they are great and that TW3 has no denuvo, micro transactions, loot boxes but yeaaa the consumers are of fault and those pesky pirates that don't like mircro transations, loot boxes, encrypted data, always online, 3 concurrent DRM's cough Ubicrap,season passes, unfinished games, broken games like Andromeda, budged games as Fallout 4 and AC unity it was and so one.
Comment has been collapsed.
No one has definite proof, i know about the TW3 piracy issues and their game growth. But that's just 1 game out of thousands of them out there, how many more can say that piracy helped improve their sales? (that's also because their game is that GOOD that players that pirate didn't mind buying it to support the devs) I don't think many. Just because of a positive outcome doesn't rectify the bad outcomes which are potentially much much more :)
Sure that may deny some of the sales but i don't think its impact is that significant and not all 'bad outcomes' have them too just like TW3
no denuvo, micro transactions, loot boxes
Comment has been collapsed.
Man I just wanted to help you with all those goodies that the god old companies use to support your argument :
those pesky pirates that don't like mircro transations, loot boxes, encrypted data, always online, 3 concurrent DRM's cough Ubicrap,season passes, unfinished games, broken games like Andromeda, budged games as Fallout 4 and AC unity it was and so one.
For what I saw great games do great because well the people buy them and support the devs simple as that.
And nope no one can say that pirating influences negative the sales because simple they can't and is simple an excuse.
You can't say 1 pirated copy equal 1 sale because well you can't, because some pirate to see the game some pirate and never buy it so no sale lost there but hey many surveyes showed this but those greedy companies need to show the stock owners some excuses, am I right EA :))).
TW3 is a great game from a great company so if I pirated it at start, I did , bought the base + dlc on steam and soon will buy the Goty on GOG and you know why because they deserve it.
CD red doesn't mind piracy because well DRM free says it all to answer your question, they even commented on torrents with TW3 and said good customers will buy it and well it seams many bought it because well DRM free and stuff like one of the best games ever, the same statements were for the Game Of Thrones series at start they said torrents provided the best free publicity "that money can buy" again thanks to those torrents :D.
When those great companies back off on : mircro transations, loot boxes, encrypted data, always online, 3 concurrent DRM's cough Ubicrap,season passes, unfinished games, broken games like Andromeda, budged games as Fallout 4 and AC unity it was and so one maybe then they can say something on PIRACY and stuff.
Also this is the last wall of text from me, maybe it is better to not quote the EA's and Take Two's on the impact of piracy without any prof.
Have a great day!
Comment has been collapsed.
season passes, microtransactions, are just to get more money.
season pass is +- fine sometimes,to get extra content for some money is nice.
Comment has been collapsed.
Denuvo = No buy
If you really want to play in MONSTER HUNTER: WORLD you need to try: ,, Dauntless,, its F2P game
https://playdauntless.com/
Comment has been collapsed.
Dauntless has a long way to go to evenly compete with Monster Hunter that even with Denuvo missing out on MH World is regrettable subjectively.
Comment has been collapsed.
don't care, i am to much of a retarded fanboy of the series to miss it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hate Denuvo. I bought MHW tho, I've waited 14 years to play it NOTHING CAN STOP ME.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why does an online MMO need that kind of DRM? Steamworks isn't enough?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really care about Denuvo. I mean it's wrong, I don't like it, but already have games that "feature" it and didn't have issues so far. What I would in theory be concerned is replaying those games in 10 years or so but... eh... none of these games I got that have Denuvo seem worth replaying in 10 years so who cares.
Comment has been collapsed.
As a random street cat who just recently graduated from game piracy, I don't really mind～
Yes, only game piracy, can't expect much from street cats in a country with weak currency, ahaha
Comment has been collapsed.
Could not care less. Buy.. play.. works fine?.. keep playing. Otherwise refund.
I refuse to enter the popularity-contest-hate-train. ✌
Comment has been collapsed.
I got hit with 1 Denuvo game and it was such a nightmare that I'll completely avoid it in future.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yesterday Origins. Pretty cool game overall, but it took me ages to figure out how to actually play it instead just getting a black screen.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think Denuvo was to blame (as much as I despise this DRM), the game itself was just horribly buggy at first (at least people playing pirate version had the same complains).
Comment has been collapsed.
In this case there was a Denuvo error message box (with "Denuvo" as the title) that was probably supposed pop over the game but actually popped under instead because the game used an "always on top" window, rendering popups useless. After eventually discovering this I then had to go through the process of getting the game to be able to contact the activation servers, which I never want to go through again.
Aside from that I like the game but I'll be very cautious about any insane online activation requirements from now on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh. Haven't heard of this aspect of using this glorious DRM before, in my case it was a simple but heavy frame drop that considerably reduced when I pirated the same version of the game (Sherlock Holmes: The Devil's Daughter). As for Yesterday Origins, I was pretty angry at Microids for how they treated probably the best Pendulo game: they added Denuvo, they set an unreasonable price tag, and on top of that they published it the same day Dishonored 2 was released. I'm just glad Pendulo didn't go bankrupt as a result.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right - so much care and effort went into the game, and the publisher stacked everything against them. It would have been terrible if Pendulo had gone under because of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Arkham Knight, God Eater 1 & 2, DE: Mankind Divided, For Honor, Wildlands, Final Fantasy XII: The Zodiac Age, Mad Max, all played perfectly and without problems (i'm far from an high end pc, i have a laptop with a good GTX965M), i can understand the "problems" around the company and everything about the "DRM is useless" it is, but the DRM itself never give me problems, so if you really want the game, i think you can safely buy it, or wait for the first reviews, maybe it will be another broken port, DRM or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
never had problem with Denuvo so far so thats not a dealbreaker for me
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if you think Denuvo would be a deal breaker from getting the game, simple word of advice: Don't get it ^^
You probably dont love the game enough to play it anyways if Denuvo is what you're concerned with <3
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't love the franchise at all :P It would be the first game Monster Hunter game I've ever owned, if I got it. I'm just really interested in it, because of my colleagues, who played it a lot on PS4 and really hyped it up to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if its the first, you won't regret getting it especially if you have people to play with all the time :D
The hype is real for this one
Comment has been collapsed.
Denuvo can cause gameplay issues depending how the game's developers implement the DRM. Worst come to worst are like what happened to Tekken 7 and Rime. The issue of how many games using Denuvo have deteriorated performance is exaggerated, I think.
https://wccftech.com/tekken-7-denuvo-drm-performance-issues/
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/06/crackers-say-denuvo-drm-caused-slowdown-on-rime/
Games that use Denuvo require an internet connection for a brief time to confirm the game is genuine or require a consistent internet connection.
Will games with Denuvo require you to be always online?
No.
Games will require initial online authentication via Steam during installation. At this point Denuvo will also automatically authenticate.
You can then decide to play in offline mode if you wish.
Some games sometimes need to be always online, but this isn’t a Denuvo requirement.
http://www.sega.com/denuvo
This is a possible issue for players who want to play their games in areas with unreliable or limited internet. I believe if a game using Denuvo cannot connect with the DRM's server, then the game cannot be played at all and this also happens if Denuvo is offline for whatever reason - something players cannot do anything about except complain on social media.
Unnecessary intimidation.
Does Denuvo limit the max number of times I can install the game on different PCs?
No.
You can install your SEGA games on as many PCs as you like under your Steam account.
The only limit is on the number on PCs you can install on in any 24 hour period. This is limited to 5 PCs.
There might of course be an unusual reason you would want to install the game on more than 5 PCs in a day, but we hope in that case you don’t mind waiting a couple of hours. This is obviously an important measure to help us prevent the spread of a pirated version of the game. We hope that you appreciate that by helping us to prevent piracy, you also help us make more games in the future.
I don't know anyone who installs a game using Denuvo on more than 5 computers, but the installation restriction makes the consumers feel they have weak ownership of their games.
All that said, Denuvo is an unnecessary program that possibly (and has) lead to problems the video game players or consumers are unable to resolve and rather the consumers have to depend on the game developers and/or Denuvo to rectify the issues of their products. At times, issues do not arrive quickly or are neglected.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think "no more than 5 PCs in a day" is to combat people that make new steam account to buy newly released game and then share it with hundreds of people via some auctions site.
You could buy access to pretty much every single AAA game here for like 2$. So I think it's a good thing. Auction sites don't care to fight with it as they have constant stream of money thanks to that, and reject reports about it saying "we will do something only if valve or Dev show us exact auction to be removed".
So they combat this from denuvo side instead. You won't be able to sell access to steam account to 200 people if game can be installed only 5 times per day. It'd make some people wait in queue for weeks to play game. Unless pirate would buy few copies for few account and in this case devs do get money for at least few copies. Not one that's sold forever without limits.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only time I would ever buy a game that has Denuvo is if there is a Linux version of it.
Even tho I don't care about this game I am looking forward to it hopefully being cracked on day 1 just because fuck Denuvo.
Comment has been collapsed.
So I checked the Monster Hunter: World on Steam and lo and behold it features Denuvo, a well known malware-level DRM. So far I managed to steer clear of Denuvo games, but after having the game hyped up to me by some friends who own PS4 I'm strongly considering getting it regardless of that. I guess it all depends how good the PC edition is in the end?
Complimentary GA: https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/N5vSH/divide-by-sheep
Comment has been collapsed.