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
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/935316-assassins-creed-directors-cut-edition/43146901
That's the thing: paying consumers always pay the price for DRM by having to jump through any hoops.
Sounds like they added it after the review embargo ended but before the game releases to the public.
Ubisoft does the Ubisoft thing - nothing new under the sun.
Refund, refund, refund. The only single thing they will ever care about is the $.
I think anyone who reviewed it should publish a secondary videos explaining this.
This seems like it's legitimately false advertising
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).
Offering a specific version of the product for reviewers to write about that buying customers won't get? fry-im-shocked.gif
The sad part is that tomorrow they could release "Assasins Creed: Reflection". And people would make the exact same mistake all over.
You know Ubisoft has a shit reputation. You know Bethesda is famous for broken, buggy, glitchy games. You know Blizzard Activision isn't the same as old Blizzard. Don't you guys have phones?
I didn't buy this game. I didn't buy Starfield, and I didn't buy Diablo IV.
Anyone not blinded by hype could see this coming to all those games from a paid pre-alpha deluxe collectors gold season battle pass track booster mile away.
the error is buying a game from a series with 11 games in development
https://en.as.com/meristation/news/ubisoft-has-11-assassins-creed-games-in-the-works-n/
they are going to run out of words in the dictionary to name these fucking games, they will start using words in a different language for the codenames.
Why the hell would they add the DRM after release when the game is already cracked before the DRM was added? I can never understand this logic.
To fuck over their customers. As usual.
Ubisoft making themselves an even more loveable company...
Reviewers should subtract points from the rating of every new Ubisoft game, for the real potential of something like this happening after the review.
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.
Well, they've accidentally made a really easy workaround, then. Just download the day one depot and you can play without Denuvo.
It's simple. Stop buying crap products!
That's the thing though - they deliberately made the product crappier after people already bought it.
Think this applies if Denuvo is included from the beginning, but it wasn't here
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.
Well I know what game I'm not buying. This should just fuel the pirate ships I'd think.
ELI5?
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.
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.
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?
I… but… that… that isn’t how this works…
You’re putting the cat outside after it already ate the canary.
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
Early adopters pay more for less anyway and they will remove Denuvo after a few months, because it's a subscription service. Never understood the hurry of the crack groups.
Yeah I will never not dislike Ubisoft games on principle
Fuck Ubisoft
Hardly anyone is streaming it. It's the same cringy dialogue with the same boring game as its predecessors. I haven't seen anything in any of the streams that would change my mind.
It’s Ubisoft, who would be surprised? Pirates get a better experience than paying customers and it’s been that way for over a decade
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
Comments.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
