I have a feeling even if it's confirmed and verified Square Enix will never remove Denuvo. They've never done it in the past and they don't even patch severely broken games like Nier Automata. They just expect people to use community mods to fix it. I'm shocked that SE released any patch at all for FF15, even if it was for a game break bug that was easy for them to repair.

About Nier Automata the last update correct nearly everything, exept the keyboard control (but it's a console port... and i have a pad, so i don't care too much)... very good game. and yes square enix don't like patching 🙂

There is no Nier update? I don't see a single patch listed. The only update listed in Steam for it is an AMD driver update...

Not surprising. Adding directory where I have all compilers and tools into exception for Windows Anti-virus makes it work like 10 times faster.

Neo Cyrus:

There is no Nier update? I don't see a single patch listed. The only update listed in Steam for it is an AMD driver update...

Yep, there is no update, DLC was released. also durante did a piece on this that also showed denuvo screwed a bit with load times

scatman839:

https://www.pcgamer.com/denuvo-drm-performance-final-fantasy-15/ Tested: Denuvo DRM has no performance impact on Final Fantasy 15 By Peter "Durante" Thoman 19 hours ago Durante puts FF15 through its paces to see if the DRM really slows games down.

rl66:

About Nier Automata the last update correct nearly everything, exept the keyboard control (but it's a console port... and i have a pad, so i don't care too much)... very good game. and yes square enix don't like patching 🙂

Which patch?

I'm glad that someone made this kind of comparison, but the test itself is not very reliable. For starters tests system has only 8GB of RAM, which might be insufficient for a recent AAA game, therefore a lot of paging could happen. PC should be rebooted before every game launch to avoid Windows File Caching. They could have used graphs in Afterburner to better represent FPS and CPU load over time. If they noticed unusual HDD activity they could use tools like Process Monitor to actually see what this HDD activity is. Denuvo was accused some time ago for constantly writing to SSD resulting in lower life span. Also running a prerecorded demo or in-game benchmark would give more consistent and comparable results.

fOrTy_7:

I'm glad that someone made this kind of comparison, but the test itself is not very reliable. For starters tests system has only 8GB of RAM, which might be insufficient for a recent AAA game, therefore a lot of paging could happen. PC should be rebooted before every game launch to avoid Windows File Caching. They could have used graphs in Afterburner to better represent FPS and CPU load over time. If they noticed unusual HDD activity they could use tools like Process Monitor to actually see what this HDD activity is. Denuvo was accused some time ago for constantly writing to SSD resulting in lower life span. Also running a prerecorded demo or in-game benchmark would give more consistent and comparable results.

The pirated version runs fine with 8 GB of ram. This is just a load test not a benchmark test.

Guess the Steam API implementation has been done badly, it certainly isn't doing it any favors.

fOrTy_7:

I'm glad that someone made this kind of comparison, but the test itself is not very reliable. For starters tests system has only 8GB of RAM, which might be insufficient for a recent AAA game, therefore a lot of paging could happen. PC should be rebooted before every game launch to avoid Windows File Caching. They could have used graphs in Afterburner to better represent FPS and CPU load over time. If they noticed unusual HDD activity they could use tools like Process Monitor to actually see what this HDD activity is. Denuvo was accused some time ago for constantly writing to SSD resulting in lower life span. Also running a prerecorded demo or in-game benchmark would give more consistent and comparable results.

Not to get off topic but 8gb is still fine, even if you have to pagefile some memory...Not a big deal.

Nothing surprising here for me. I remember the same thing happen when comparing the Steam version against the unsteamed unprotected version of 'Half Life 2' many years ago. The same story.... The unprotected version loaded quicker and played with less stuttering than the paid version. It was so bad that even though I bought the game, I only played it using the unprotected version for a better gaming experiance.

Denuvo doesn't impact performance at all. It has already been debunked. It's another thing to not like online DRMs because of their limitations and another thing to accuse something without any data just because you can't pirate it the moment you want. Steam API is to blame for the overhead that it adds for the PC version and there is already a mod for that called Special K in the Steam community. It indeed makes game load faster. Denuvo has nothing to do with it.

BlueRay:

Denuvo doesn't impact performance at all. It has already been debunked. It's another thing to not like online DRMs because of their limitations and another thing to accuse something without any data just because you can't pirate it the moment you want. Steam API is to blame for the overhead that it adds for the PC version and there is already a mod for that called Special K in the Steam community. It indeed makes game load faster. Denuvo has nothing to do with it.

But....The video proves it Denuvo does increase the load times?

vbetts:

But....The video proves it Denuvo does increase the load times?

I'm at work so I can't watch the video but reading the article makes it sound like the guy does an A:B test between the game running on steam with dunevo enabled vs pirated (not on steam) with denuvo removed. The takeaway makes it sound like denuvo is 100% behind the increased loadtimes whereas BlueRay is saying that it's not dunevo but because steam isn't running in the pirated version.

vbetts:

But....The video proves it Denuvo does increase the load times?

Durante already proved Denuvo doesn't impact performance. The loading times are because the Steam API causes many drawcalls and thus hampering performance. There is already a mod in the Steam Community that fixes this (Special K). There is nothing here and we should stop beating a dead horse. Denuvo DRM has nothing to do with loading times. We can discuss about how online DRMs are a bad policy but we should't discuss and spread urban legends. Check steam for Special K if you own the game in Steam and want better loading times.

the Pirate game is faster!....Looooool....:D

and another game DRM that run s better with it gone

...but why?

Makes sense that it would load faster since there's no DRM being loaded. Does that make it better? no it just means buyers will get longer load times than pirates. I'd take slower load times any day over risking using a torrented game.

fOrTy_7:

I'm glad that someone made this kind of comparison, but the test itself is not very reliable. For starters tests system has only 8GB of RAM, which might be insufficient for a recent AAA game, therefore a lot of paging could happen. PC should be rebooted before every game launch to avoid Windows File Caching. They could have used graphs in Afterburner to better represent FPS and CPU load over time. If they noticed unusual HDD activity they could use tools like Process Monitor to actually see what this HDD activity is. Denuvo was accused some time ago for constantly writing to SSD resulting in lower life span. Also running a prerecorded demo or in-game benchmark would give more consistent and comparable results.

FFXV's minimum RAM requirement is 8GB but the recommended RAM req is 16 so you're right, the game would likely rum better with 16 GB instead of 8. As we all know, running on a rig with the minimum reqs is always going to give you sub-par perf. If this tester really wanted to be thorough he should have tested with 8GB RAM and then with 16 GB RAM. Also, he only tested at 720p and 1080p, not 2K or 4K. He used a i7 4930K, which is above 1080p req but below 4K req so I guess that's why he didn't test for 4K perf. Also, he used a 980ti and that's all, no 1080 or AMD GPU rigs, so he didn't test for perf under different GPU conditions; just one GPU tested for perf doesn't really give us the full picture. Still and all, it's not surprising that a game with DRM removed (or bypassed) will run faster than a game with DRM enabled because most DRM will be sitting in the background, thus impacting overhead. A properly designed DRM should only do a validity check at exe launch and/or at the start of gameplay, not constantly throughout gameplay. Unfortunately, DRM makers do not value game optimization, just DRM security. In the end it's the people who paid to get the legal version that are being punished, not the pirates. The pirates almost always manage to crack the games and it's a loosing proposition for publishers to insist on performance-draining DRM all the time. World Of Goo (remember that game?) proved that you do not need DRM to be able to attract paying gamers (it was released with no DRM at all and it sold just fine) but the industry ignored that because they have their heads up their asses when it comes to DRM. ::sigh::