Rumours and Speculations

[sv3672]

Yeah I saw that but I went to the link and it had nothing about company size. There was a video link but it was a 30 minute gameplay beta...sooo?

Their forum shows a list of everyone from the team, it is 74 people there.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

The only thing that bothers me is not knowing even the most basic of the game's concepts. I don't need weekly, monthly or even yearly progress updates.

But, for example, it'd be a bit of an unpleasant surprise to only learn that the game doesn't have character creation once at E3, or that it's actually not an "RPG" at all but more of a first person shooter with a skill tree. These are the sorts of things even the most secretive of companies (Taleworlds, anyone?) give details on initially, even if the intricacies of these systems are subject to change. These should be the things that are (Relatively) set in stone, the core fundamentals of the game.

If these core fundamentals change, that should be disclosed, because it sets the stage for the entirety of the rest of the game. Character creation (or the lack thereof) dictates the sort of game they're making.

Agreed. I can't even count how many different scenarios I've thought about on how it could succeed or fail with me.

Somewhat "educated" guesses based on job offers and some vague statements made few years ago could be made, but it's still neither here nor there. This also makes speculation quite difficult and taking their word for "Yes, we will deliver" and other such ("not a shooter", "true RPG", etc) somewhat difficult without any point of reference... Deliver what exactly?

The "journey" here has so far been about chasing a vague, blurry concept to which everyone has a different opinion. And if it turns out that it just goes sour for what ever reason, the disappointment is far greater to what it would be if the time chasing that concept would've been just a year or so, or if there was at least some knowledge on what it was that we were following.

I'm not going to bitch about it more than this, though, I chose to have my pipedreams here and if the ship sinks, the captain will go with it.

 

[Meccanical]

I'm not even sure what my expectations are at this point, I just want to see it.

 

[Shavod]

I spend about 15 hours in KCD And while its reactivity and nonlinearity in terms of gameplay are superb and deserve a huge round of applause, the game seems to be quite linear in terms of choices and consequences (something in which TW series, especially AoK, shines). As it has been mentioned before, every additional branch means more testing, more bugs, more effort, more money. Now the thing is, could CDPR connect those two things in CP without making a buggy unplayable mess because suddenly one quest has 10 different outcomes that need to be thoroughly polished.

Yeah, I noticed this is a pretty big issue with role playing portion of the Kingdom Come. The game let's you do whatever you want outside of story, but whenever the story related content begins, you have a very little control over Henry's words and actions, which creates a strong dissonance between those two portions of the game. In game you had an opportunity to loot multiple corpses, but when someone asks him about stealing a ring from the dead man, he's horrified by the mere thought without any input on player's part. You could murder a multiple bystanders for no reason, yet during the story dialogues and cutscenes he will still act as a perfectly nice guy to people around him without you having any control over that. It's clear they were trying to combine The Witcher storytelling with Oblivion style gameplay, but they lacked time and resources to do that properly, so in the end they ended up developing two different games independently (and did it really well, mind you, so don't think I'm shitting on the game, cause I do not) from each other, then simply glued them together.

 

[Snowflakez]

I'm not even sure what my expectations are at this point, I just want to see it.

Yeah, I noticed this is a pretty big issue with role playing portion of the Kingdom Come. The game let's you do whatever you want outside of story, but whenever the story related content begins, you have a very little control over Henry's words and actions, which creates a strong dissonance between those two portions of the game. In game you had an opportunity to loot multiple corpses, but when someone asks him about stealing a ring from the dead man, he's horrified by the mere thought without any input on player's part. You could murder a multiple bystanders for no reason, yet during the story dialogues and cutscenes he will still act as a perfectly nice guy to people around him without you having any control over that. It's clear they were trying to combine The Witcher storytelling with Oblivion style gameplay, but they lacked time and resources to do that properly, so in the end they ended up developing two different games independently (and did it really well, mind you, so don't think I'm shitting on the game, cause I do not) from each other, then simply glued them together.

STOP POSTING RIGHT AFTER EACH OTHER.

 

[SigilFey]

There are many mechanics like that that are actually not hard to implement, but tend to be missing from AAA titles, perhaps because developers think there is not enough demand for them, and they can make QA more difficult (i.e. more potential for bugs and glitches). Larger studios prefer a polished and generally predictable experience. They might have a point, though, since for example The Witcher 3 receives little to no criticism for the relative lack of interactivity features, while if a game is buggy or unpolished, it has a noticeable impact on its review scores.

If only the experts had the final say. It's almost unavoidable, but people that pay for something somehow feel entitled to dictate terms on that thing. It's technically valid, but it's also self-defeating. If a doctor I'm paying for an operation says that a particular procedure must be done, am I going to tell that doctor, "No, I disagree. Skip that procedure and just move to the incision." No. Ridiculous. How would I have any knowledge of this? I'm not a doctor. But if a game developer tells me that including a specific game mechanic will create too much of a pacing issue with the game, all of a sudden I'm the dang expert. I'll insist the dev team include it because market studies show... So...developers and designers are not experts in their field and their professional decisions are going to be ignored...because I'm paying for it? Unless I'm in the hospital. Yeah...that sounds like humans, alright.

It's like a whole bouquet of :facepalms: surrounded by an entire chorus of :eyerolls:.

Ignore the experts, and kiss the desired results goodbye. If I have a good idea, the experts will tell me.

But, for example, it'd be a bit of an unpleasant surprise to only learn that the game doesn't have character creation once at E3, or that it's actually not an "RPG" at all but more of a first person shooter with a skill tree. These are the sorts of things even the most secretive of companies (Taleworlds, anyone?) give details on initially, even if the intricacies of these systems are subject to change. These should be the things that are (Relatively) set in stone, the core fundamentals of the game. If these core fundamentals change, that should be disclosed, because it sets the stage for the entirety of the rest of the game. Character creation (or the lack thereof) dictates the sort of game they're making.

Which is exactly the type of pressure that can make me second-guess what I know. Oh, well, there are a lot of people that want XYZ feature. It woudn't really be too big of a departure...okay...we'll do it that way. That only needs to happen once for the ripples to cover the whole pond. I'd much rather come to my own conclusion in-process that, hey...we were going to do an established character, but I'm encountering yet another moment that I think would be benefited by having a fully customizable character. I think we might have to go that way after all.

Better for that to happen in the devs' minds. Too easy for people to say "no avocado" on their burger. But if the chef just says "close your eyes" and sticks a bite with avocado in their mouths...oh...whoa!...they had no idea that's what it would taste like...! (Kind of paralleling the "let the experts decide" argument.)

But I'd still press my ear against the door if I was there.

 

[Suhiira]

It's like a whole bouquet of :facepalms: surrounded by an entire chorus of :eyerolls:.

That, my friend, is the nature of programming. I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've had one business exec or another demand X, Y, or Z feature be included (or excluded) from an application. Usually all you can do is say is "Yes Sir/Ma'am" or maybe ... maybe ... point out it'll cost time/money. The gaming community is large, and contains a tiny ... TINY (in comparison to the communities size) ... vocal minority. Certain types of games sell better then others (duh). Given these facts it really isn't much of a surprise people that run gaming companies as a business do many of the things they do. Hell, look at the whole loot box thing currently going on.

The main, and major, advantage the gaming industry has is all you need to create a game is a few PCs and some talented artists, animators, writers, and programmers. It's not like you need a factory worth millions to manufacture your product. So no matter what the giants in the industry do there will always be indy developers pushing the bounds, and on occasion the giants will take notice of a feature some indy game develops. The sheep will always buy mainstream products and insure mainstream developers continue to garner the profits they desire from producing generic games. On occasion someone like CDPR will show up and force the industry to take notice, but don't expect mainstream developers to change their ways unless, and until, the sheep quit supporting them.

 

[Snowflakez]

That, my friend, is the nature of programming. I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've had one business exec or another demand X, Y, or Z feature be included (or excluded) from an application. Usually all you can do is say is "Yes Sir/Ma'am" or maybe ... maybe ... point out it'll cost time/money. The gaming community is large, and contains a tiny ... TINY (in comparison to the communities size) ... vocal minority. Certain types of games sell better then others (duh). Given these facts it really isn't much of a surprise people that run gaming companies as a business do many of the things they do. Hell, look at the whole loot box thing currently going on.

The main, and major, advantage the gaming industry has is all you need to create a game is a few PCs and some talented artists, animators, writers, and programmers. It's not like you need a factory worth millions to manufacture your product. So no matter what the giants in the industry do there will always be indy developers pushing the bounds, and on occasion the giants will take notice of a feature some indy game develops. The sheep will always buy mainstream products and insure mainstream developers continue to garner the profits they desire from producing generic games. On occasion someone like CDPR will show up and force the industry to take notice, but don't expect mainstream developers to change their ways unless, and until, the sheep quit supporting them.

Have I said I love you lately?

Jokes aside, I just wanted to piggyback on the loot box thing - its actually less that the mainstream audience is buying them and more that a very small, but very rich, portion of the gaming audience at large is buying them. Thus, they make enough money to warrant their continued inclusion in games. "Whales" and "Dolphins" and whatnot. I'm not going to get into my detailed thoughts on the loot box stuff here, just wanted to add this. I agree with everything else.

I truly think (and I could well be wrong) that a sizable portion, if not the majority, of gamers really don't have much interest in lootboxes outside of purely cosmetic ones or their inclusion in F2P titles. I won't go so far as to say they have no interest in microtransactions, but it's really the lootboxes that give publishers all the $.

The thing I really do like about CDPR is that, despite us not knowing much about 2077 or if it will cater to what we want, they -- as a company -- completely reject the idea of loot boxes and microtransactions in full fledged, AAA titles. I love that. They don't just say "nah," they seem repulsed by the very idea. Of course, part of that is undoubtedly just very good (and smart) marketing, but it seems more genuine given their track record. I'll always appreciate that about them, even if their games stop appealing to me.

 

[SigilFey]

That, my friend, is the nature of programming. I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've had one business exec or another demand X, Y, or Z feature be included (or excluded) from an application. Usually all you can do is say is "Yes Sir/Ma'am" or maybe ... maybe ... point out it'll cost time/money. The gaming community is large, and contains a tiny ... TINY (in comparison to the communities size) ... vocal minority. Certain types of games sell better then others (duh). Given these facts it really isn't much of a surprise people that run gaming companies as a business do many of the things they do. Hell, look at the whole loot box thing currently going on.

"Whales" and "Dolphins" and whatnot...I truly think (and I could well be wrong) that a sizable portion, if not the majority, of gamers really don't have much interest in lootboxes outside of purely cosmetic ones or their inclusion in F2P titles. I won't go so far as to say they have no interest in microtransactions, but it's really the lootboxes that give publishers all the $.

Its exactly the whales that they focus on, and there have never been more whales than with the introduction of microtransactions on mobile devices. Story time! I worked with a team that wanted to build a game for iPhone / iPad years ago. NDA...of course...so no actual details. I did ghost-writing for them, which started out as mostly value statements for investors but eventually moved on to character and item descriptions for the game itself (which I had a blast with)...but...there was a problem.

Right from the get-go, everything that was being "pitched" was based on a super-top-secret marketing model based on sort-of microtransactions. It really was a great idea, but I could tell immediately that they were going about it the wrong way. It was totally not my place to raise concerns and certainly not to challenge anything, but I tried to "ask questions" from time to time. (And one of the 3 founders I knew personally, and I did directly address it with him on two occasions. He simply disagreed with my views.) Basically, they were pitching the marketing model, not the game. But because they wanted to keep things under wraps, even that was not being directly introduced. So the docs felt a like nothing but empty promises and hypothetical comparisons to other models. They also had a general description of what the game would be like, but they had not even considered what the actual goal of the gameplay was, or how things would actually function -- what the player would do from moment to moment. (You know, little things.)

In short, they were pitching the promise of a marketing model that would be extremely profitable through a game they would design later.

I eventually argued that with things the way they were going, the designers were eventually going to get jaded about the lack of direction, the devs were going to feel insecure about the lack of actual work, and the team was going to walk. Eventually, the designers got very quiet, the devs started asking if things were going to kick off soon...and everybody walked. That was good and bad. Good, because it made me feel more confident that I had read the situation correctly and could probably have avoided it...bad because it was a really cool concept and the project wound up dying before it ever took its first breath. Frustrating.

It was a matter of expertise, in the end. These were business peoples. They knew board rooms and how to balance the books. They didn't understand theatre, speaking to an audience for purposes of selling entertainment, nor what the salient features of a game design were. It's quite sad that so much talent was brought together only to fizzle because the experts that needed to do were being led by people that did not really understand what the experts were supposed to do. They were chiefly concerned with maximizing their investments.

It's literally counting chickens before they're hatched. Oh, and we'll need to get some eggs, too, at some point.

The main, and major, advantage the gaming industry has is all you need to create a game is a few PCs and some talented artists, animators, writers, and programmers. It's not like you need a factory worth millions to manufacture your product. So no matter what the giants in the industry do there will always be indy developers pushing the bounds, and on occasion the giants will take notice of a feature some indy game develops. The sheep will always buy mainstream products and insure mainstream developers continue to garner the profits they desire from producing generic games. On occasion someone like CDPR will show up and force the industry to take notice, but don't expect mainstream developers to change their ways unless, and until, the sheep quit supporting them.

And, amen to the indie scene! I'm so happy that things like Kickstarter and Steam Greenlight came about. I'm not super-crazy about how all of it works, but it at least lets a no-name studio make themselves known to the masses and let the masses decide if they're interested or not. Not only for small-time studios with brilliant ideas, but for heavyweights that just couldn't convince AAA producers that they had a bold new idea people would love (Roberts, Star Citizen). I'm surprised Richard Gariott hasn't come forward to re-do Ultima IX, too. And I prefer life with Salt and Sanctuary.

 

[Suhiira]

Basically, they were pitching the marketing model, not the game.

They also had a general description of what the game would be like, but they had not even considered what the actual goal of the gameplay was, or how things would actually function -- what the player would do from moment to moment. (You know, little things.)

In short, they were pitching the promise of a marketing model that would be extremely profitable through a game they would design later.

You just described the vast majority of of the mainstream game development industry.

The product they're producing is totally irrelevant, the profits that can made are all that matters. And the investors are even worse; they could care less if they ruin game developers purchased by the parent company. Once they've milked the gaming community, and developers, for all their worth they'll just sell their holdings for a nice profit and invest in something else.

It was a matter of expertise, in the end. These were business people. They knew board rooms and how to balance the books. They didn't understand theatre, speaking to an audience for purposes of selling entertainment, nor what the salient features of a game design were.

We don't have to like it, but that's the way the business and investment communities (primarily in the USA) work. Much of the rest of the world views stable long term profits as desirable, but not in the USA, they're just in it for a fast buck.

And, amen to the indie scene! I'm so happy that things like Kickstarter and Steam Greenlight came about. I'm not super-crazy about how all of it works, but it at least lets a no-name studio make themselves known to the masses and let the masses decide if they're interested or not. Not only for small-time studios with brilliant ideas, but for heavyweights that just couldn't convince AAA producers that they had a bold new idea people would love <clip>

This is where places like CDPR (and probably Warhorse) come in. People that care about the product they're producing and the long term advantages of making what the community wants, not just what sells best this week.

 

[SigilFey]

We don't have to like it, but that's the way the business and investment communities (primarily in the USA) work. Much of the rest of the world views stable long term profits as desirable, but not in the USA, they're just in it for a fast buck.

And that's truly the crux of the issue, II feel. It really serves no purpose to "make a lot of money up front". That doesn't help anything, and it doesn't make it more likely that I'll be able to repeat the same process again in the future, it makes it less likely, as it destabilizes the industry. Not to mention it's hideously wasteful. And flat-out greedy. But...that's human instinct.

It's largely why I loved the theatre. I've been involved in productions that were completely profit-driven, but I've also done shows that broke the box office record for the venue, and we had literally sifted through the dumpsters out back for materials while building our set. I just don't get the business mindset. Especially as it applies to artistic ventures. People would rather have a number get bigger so they can buy more stuff they don't need instead of accomplish something amazing that people will remember.

Can you imagine what TW3 would have been if a producer had grabbed the reins said: "We've been looking over the game, and there's an awful lot of talking in it. Our studies show that players want a game to move along. Let's cut the gab down to, say, 2 hours total over the course of the game. And add more of those chicken-lizard things! That was a fun fight." It's so nice to know that's not a concern for Cyberpunk. (They'll have all sorts of other challenges to overcome instead! )

 

[Rawls]

Can you imagine what TW3 would have been if a producer had grabbed the reins said: "We've been looking over the game, and there's an awful lot of talking in it. Our studies show that players want a game to move along. Let's cut the gab down to, say, 2 hours total over the course of the game. And add more of those chicken-lizard things! That was a fun fight." It's so nice to know that's not a concern for Cyberpunk. (They'll have all sorts of other challenges to overcome instead! )

In their defense, chicken-lizard things scored very high in the focus groups.

 

[SigilFey]

In their defense, chicken-lizard things scored very high in the focus groups.

Above the angry deer-whatsits and hairy bat-monkeys??? There must have been a problem with the study. Call R&D and have them put another $250,000 on a nationwide survey.

Also, we're doing Buoillier's for lunch. Long wait, but they have the best chateaubriand in town. We can just push back the 4:00 until tomorrow.

(Sorry. Work stuff is displacing onto my humor a bit.)

 

[sv3672]

Jokes aside, I just wanted to piggyback on the loot box thing - its actually less that the mainstream audience is buying them and more that a very small, but very rich, portion of the gaming audience at large is buying them. Thus, they make enough money to warrant their continued inclusion in games. "Whales" and "Dolphins" and whatnot. I'm not going to get into my detailed thoughts on the loot box stuff here, just wanted to add this. I agree with everything else.

In a full priced AAA title, it does have a disadvantage to focus too much on the "whales", if the game gains a poor reputation because of the microtransactions, fewer people may risk buying it, so many potential "dolphins" could disappear.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

when you look at the calendar and notices there are only 109 days until E3

 

[Razrback16]

I'm not even sure what my expectations are at this point, I just want to see it.

Hah, no doubt. Would be epic if by some chance it came out the back end of this year. Really anxious for this game.

 

[Gleipnir3]

I speculate that speculation and over-hype kills games.

But that aside, I'm waiting for factual data direct from CDPR. The moment they give some details will be the moment I sober up and fangirl over it.

 

[Snowflakez]

I speculate that speculation and over-hype kills games.

Hmmm...

Speculation is good, and hype actually doesn't affect anyone but the person getting hyped. So, if I want to be hyped for 2077, I'm going to be hyped for 2077, because that's sort of not really anybody else's problem but my own. Similarly, if I'm disappointed, that's also on nobody but me. Yay for marketing, the second oldest profession in the world. The pope said that, probably.

We're on a forum for a game that we have no info on. So... speculation is gonna happen, and people's expectations are going to be high. Frankly, that's mostly CDPR's fault. They're the ones who talked about how this game was going to be "so much bigger" than the Witcher 3, no matter how long ago it was.

I speculate that your speculation is... *drum roll* speculation. Checkmate!

 

[Gleipnir3]

Question, if they did, would they be under NDA? IDK how this all works.

 

[Raxaphan]

I wonder who is more excited for the day the game will launch: the players that waited so many years since the game was first announced, or CDPR to show all the goodies they worked on?