DRM ONLY ever affects paying customers, ergo DRM is always unethical malware.

Also, let’s never forget how Ghostwire Tokyo had Denuvo patched IN over a year after release.

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.

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.

Reviewers get games prior to release day. So it may not be so likely that you can get a working game without the day 1 patch.

Who the fuck downvoted this comment?

Where is the false advertising?

Or, just don’t play UbiSoft or EA games. SEGA sometimes removes Denuvo after a time, so they’re sometimes good ib a waiting list.

Yeah, at least if they’re not free-to-play. Publishers have shown time and time again that you can NOT trust them with your money. Only pay for something if you know exactly what you’re getting.

Patient gamer all the way! I recently played dying light 2. Fun game but a year after release and it’s still buggy as hell.

deleted by creator

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.

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?

Denuvo bad.

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.

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

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.