I’m an adult with a job, and I don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of affording the recommended system requirements for this game any time soon. RX6800XTs do not grow on trees.

Now imagine how fast they’d be without Denuvo.

Steam system requirements say RX5700 minimum. Recommended is RX6800XT, which was ludicrously expensive last I checked. Also I need a much newer CPU.

In this economy, that’s gonna be a no from me.

Who the hell are they expecting is going to play this game? Only trust fund kids?

“Pirates? I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over the gazillion sales we’re about to make.” —Bethesda, probably

Why would you want to play a Bethesda game 5 days early? The best time is several months after release, when the community has had time to fix the bugs.

As is Bethesda tradition.

Unless I’m mistaken, Denuvo constantly encrypts and decrypts everything in the process’ memory, including executable code, in order to conceal it. There is no way to do that without massive performance overhead.

It would also be unplayably slow. Bethesda games aren’t known for performance even without Denuvo slowing them down.

Sadly, mods can and do remove the horrid dialog wheel thing, but they can’t add more interesting dialog options.

I feel like Bethesda wouldn’t use Denuvo at all, because it would break a lot of mods, and Bethesda games rely heavily on mods to be fun.

ETA: Also, Bethesda games tend to be appallingly slow even without Denuvo, let alone with it.

It costs four hundred thousand Red Bulls to crack this video game in twelve seconds.

I loved Fallout 4…once there were enough mods to fix everything that’s wrong with the vanilla game.

Which is par for the course with Bethesda. 🤷‍♂️

There are very few problems you can’t solve with a large enough explosion.

Are Blizzard games worth cracking any more?

Ludicrously profitable megacorporations demand more profit.

Who the hell can afford this stuff in this economy?

Then it should be marked as such. It’s highly misleading to anyone who doesn’t know better. Again, you’re demonstrating the difference between 5-bit and 8-bit color, not the difference between 8-bit and 10-bit color.

One that’s not patent encumbered.

Hold up. That entire image is 8-bit. It’s a JPEG image. JPEG can’t encode more than 8 bits per channel. Nor can most displays, including mine, display more than 8 bits per channel. And yet the left half of your image exhibits far worse banding than the right half.

The left half looks more like 5 bits per channel rather than 8. You’d see that kind of banding in gradients back in the days of Windows 3.1, when 16-bit color was common. (16-bit color uses 5 bits each for red and blue, and 6 bits for green.)