EA fails to disclose the presence of Denuvo, again.

[Jaydee Old Boy]

Not much else really needs to be said. I wonder why EA are soo shady about disclosing the presence of draconian, anti-consumer, anti-tamper malware on the store page, like other devs and publishers do. It should be mandatory.

[Dagtag]

Publicado originalmente por Tiasmoon:

Publicado originalmente por Dagtag:

maybe you should have looked into it a bit better. the issue in that case was capcom drm, not denuvo

And maybe you should have read my previous post as well:

Publicado originalmente por Tiasmoon:

Because poor use of it (or any use of it depending on who you ask) can cause huge performance issues. If a game has huge performance issues, then it becomes a reasonable concern that Denuvo or its particular implementation might be part of the cause.

all that is is a justification as to why you jump to conclusions with no proof

[Tiasmoon]

Publicado originalmente por Dagtag:

Publicado originalmente por Tiasmoon:

And maybe you should have read my previous post as well:

all that is is a justification as to why you jump to conclusions with no proof

How is a post I made prior to the one you first commented on, a justification?

This is just you justifying you jumping to conclusions based on not reading all my comments.

I dont have to justify myself. Because iD already corrected me. (and they did so by providing helpful information I did not provide) I'm not someone with a small and easily damaged ego, so I atleast, have no issues being corrected. :p

[Wolfman-RIP]

Publicado originalmente por Neo King Arthur:

I would have thought Denuvo is already so common that devs and publishers don't need to disclose them. They're just there by default like the presence of the air around us. So that you can just assume Denuvo is always there.

You don't need to disclose a building that you're about to walk into has a Nitrogen-Oxygen air mixture labeled on the front of the building, do you? It's just there by default and it's always there.

Out of the thousands upon thousands of games on Steam a tiny minority have Denuvo. It's disingenuous to say its in most games when its not. It's just that the games with it tend to be from big publishers run by suits whose main concern is milking every penny out of the consumer. Publishers that can be milked for money by DRM companies claiming it will increase their profits if they shove their performance damaging malware into their games.

There are plenty of examples were Denuvo creates long loading times, lower FPS and even creating issues causing games performance to tank even on top gaming rigs.

[MetalGearOpz87]

Publicado originalmente por Snake Plissken:

You're just upset you can't pirate it. There is nothing wrong with Denuvo it was busted years ago that it causes performance issues. This port is just poorly optimised.

Complete nonsense. Denuvo causes issues, and people can crack through it no problem. So you're wrong on both counts.

[Wolfman-RIP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_DD-txK9_Q
Performance & Loading Times tested before & after 6 games dropped Denuvo

Publicado originalmente por Overlord Gaming:

In virtually every case, Denuvo has a negative impact on performance in one regard or another. Level load times are significantly longer. Frame rates are lower. In one case, the maximum frame time is more than 2.3x higher. A 58ms frame is already an incredibly low dip, but a 137ms frame time is simply absurd.

Judging by the results Overlord Gaming recorded, Denuvo tends to hit minimum frame times more heavily than average fps. We'd much rather see frame rates drop from an average of 60fps to a steady 55fps with a proportional impact on the minimum frame rate than to see minimum frame rates skyrocket with averages only slightly impacted. In fact, as Overlord points out, it's not unusual to see performance improve by 50-60 percent once Denuvo is patched out.

The performance impact of Denuvo is more than just a minor hiccup. While this will always be title-specific, it arguably feeds the perception that PCs are overly expensive gaming platforms that require far more horsepower than consoles in order to perform effectively. With minimum and even average frame rates so badly impacted, there's an effective Denuvo tax being levied on gamers who bother to buy games legitimately in the first place. Being forced to spend more money on high-end storage and GPUs to enjoy games appropriately when they're being crippled by DRM isn't exactly what most PC gamers are looking for in a premium experience.


Denuvo has never fulfilled the doom and gloom prediction that it could end the PC pirate scene altogether, but given the demonstrated impact on performance, it might simply be best to move titles that use it off your purchase list until the developers patch out the capability -- at least, assuming you aren't running an absolute top-tier rig to start with.

There have been constant news stories about problems with Denuvo. A Denuvo DRM Outage Led to Major Games Being Unplayable.

PC gamers are all about getting the best performance in games and Denuvo causes the exact opposite. Anyone defending its use doesn't place much value on PC gaming.

The 25,000 a month publishers pay for Denuvo for each game infested with it could be used to employ more game development staff improving their games and game performance. That 300k a year could be used to hire people to give us better games instead its wasted on DRM that goes against the very ethos of PC gaming.

[Dagtag]

Publicado originalmente por Wolfman-RIP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_DD-txK9_Q
Performance & Loading Times tested before & after 6 games dropped Denuvo

implementations of software do not determine what every implementation of that software will look like

There have been constant news stories about problems with Denuvo. A Denuvo DRM Outage Led to Major Games Being Unplayable.

"constant" is a massive overstatement

PC gamers are all about getting the best performance in games and Denuvo causes the exact opposite. Anyone defending its use doesn't place much value on PC gaming.

wrong.

a bad implementation of denuvo can cause the opposite. a proper implementation does not

The 25,000 a month publishers pay for Denuvo for each game infested with it could be used to employ more game development staff improving their games and game performance.

thats their choice. also, more staff isn't always guaranteed to be better. and this would only be the case if they were truly limited in budget.

moot argument

That 300k a year could be used to hire people to give us better games instead its wasted on DRM that goes against the very ethos of PC gaming. :gameover:

wrong again, see reason above

[Wolfman-RIP]

Want to learn more about which steam games secretly have Denuvo and whats wrong with it?
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/DenuvoGames

[Kunovega]

Publicado originalmente por Darkie:

Publicado originalmente por Rod:

Anyone who says Denuvo is free is a paid employee it has a system toll it is not free at all. You all buy and beta test and promote this nasty program by all means but me and my self worth and wallet will abstain.

Denuvo is free, nobody pays anything for it.
The system resources it takes, if lighter than both steam and EA app. (if that is your argument)

I dislike denuvo btw, I think its anti customers, but I am also a realist.

I'm not sure what makes you think Denuvo is free.

They charge 100's of thousands of dollars to the developer to implement Denuvo and 10's of thousands of dollars per month to maintain it after launch. Denuvo also gets paid a bonus based on game sales. The exact amount of the fee varies by game based on projected sales figures and overall development costs. But the more expensive the game, the more Denuvo charges.

Now I'm not anti-Denuvo, I know what it does and that when implemented correctly it doesn't actually hurt performance (it can when installed wrong by the developers), but I'm under no illusion that it's free. It's a very expensive anti-tampering solution, one of the most expensive in the world, because it's been proven time and time again to actually slow down piracy (not prevent, but slow down) which in turn leads to higher sales (again, proven by industry performance metrics and sales tracking ~ much of which isn't public)

But the simple truth is these costs are padded into the cost to the consumer. AAA games aren't just expensive "because they can be" they are more expensive because development costs are much higher, and one of those costs is anti-tampering protection if used.

Eventually most of the games that use it don't drop denuvo to please consumers, they simply choose to stop paying the monthly fee to maintain it after sales begin to drop off and it's no longer cost effective to keep paying for it.

[lukaself]

Publicado originalmente por Kunovega:

While the first paragraph is good factual information, the part about companies having metrics proving it leads to higher sales is pure invention on your part. If that were the case, every AAA on the market would be using it right now, instead of a minority known for questionable business practices and trivializing contempt for their customers, like Ubisoft or Frontier.

There is no clear evidence to support the claim that publishers have metrics proving that implementing Denuvo leads to higher sales. While some game publishers have stated that anti-tampering protection can deter piracy and lead to increased sales, there is no direct correlation between implementing Denuvo specifically and an increase in sales.

While I agree implementing Denuvo may be beneficial in deterring piracy and protecting the game from tampering, there is no clear evidence to suggest that it directly leads to higher sales for game publishers.

The rest of your post is mostly assumption, like the reason for removal: several companies like Bandai Namco or Amplitude noted performance issues as the reason for not using it for instance. Multiple companies have stated that Denuvo also wasn't worth the negativity. From memory there's at least two developers which noted "listening to overwhelmingly negative customer feedback" as the reason, including AAA. While it may be seem rational to believe so, Afaik there's no instance of a company ever publicly mentioning cost as a reason for removal.

[The_Gay_Agenda]

Oh I love a good Qanon meth smoking Denuvo thread!

*grabs popcorn*

Please continue.

[Kunovega]

Publicado originalmente por Darkie:

Publicado originalmente por Kunovega:

I'm not sure what makes you think Denuvo is free.

They charge 100's of thousands of dollars to the developer to implement Denuvo and 10's of thousands of dollars per month to maintain it after launch. Denuvo also gets paid a bonus based on game sales. The exact amount of the fee varies by game based on projected sales figures and overall development costs. But the more expensive the game, the more Denuvo charges.

Now I'm not anti-Denuvo, I know what it does and that when implemented correctly it doesn't actually hurt performance (it can when installed wrong by the developers), but I'm under no illusion that it's free. It's a very expensive anti-tampering solution, one of the most expensive in the world, because it's been proven time and time again to actually slow down piracy (not prevent, but slow down) which in turn leads to higher sales (again, proven by industry performance metrics and sales tracking ~ much of which isn't public)

But the simple truth is these costs are padded into the cost to the consumer. AAA games aren't just expensive "because they can be" they are more expensive because development costs are much higher, and one of those costs is anti-tampering protection if used.

Eventually most of the games that use it don't drop denuvo to please consumers, they simply choose to stop paying the monthly fee to maintain it after sales begin to drop off and it's no longer cost effective to keep paying for it.

By that argument, then Amber down in marketing also have a cost on the game.
My point here is, that it is no different than so many other aspects of game development and you would be scared if you knew how many other things are paid for as well.

Anyway.. you don´t pay extra for it, it is a free, as the marketing Amber does.. the price would be the same, this game is not more costly due to Denuvo.
As for performance, its not more costly due to that either.

Do you want to know how much EA paid to licence Star Wars?

If you think marketing is free, there's no point in talking to you. You're oblivious to how any of this works.

Licensing Star Wars: not free
Advertising: not free
Denuvo (or any anti-tampering): not free

None of these things are free, and if you think those costs aren't built into the prices we pay you have a serious misunderstanding of how any of these companies make a profit.

[Viper]

Most people don't care if it has Denuvo and never will care. Waste of time for the I want games for free crowd to keep harping on this. It accomplishes nothing.

[lukaself]

Publicado originalmente por Darkie:

Having denuvo have upped their PC sales by over 80%. that should tell you something.

Spits coffee
What a load of nonsense.

[AdahnGorion]

This game seems fun. I hope you all enjoy it

[Gigadesu!]

Publicado originalmente por Snake Plissken:

You're just upset you can't pirate it. There is nothing wrong with Denuvo it was busted years ago that it causes performance issues. This port is just poorly optimised.

Bored with this strawman. If you ain't got an actual thought on this maybe stay out of it and enjoy your broken game.