0ne step closer to the edge... and I'm about to pay - fashion 2.0

[wisielec]

0ne step closer to the edge... and I'm about to pay - fashion 2.0

There has to be a reason, and there always is - to look cool while you do what you do. It is what distinguish you from the lot; you can accomplish much - might as well look the part.
What I assume is that the game will offer an online multiplayer/co-op hub alike Watch_Dogs... maybe even more robust, significant and enjoyable. Possibly with a goal for it to last and bring in players.
Would you like to see/accept a strictly cosmetic content to pay for with real currency? Be it weapon paints or clothing models to character skins altogether (lets saaaay - GITS pack with weapons and outfits, or Kaneda leather jacket)?

What would you say to Bleeding Edge Fashion which you could buy... an in-game mtx system?

I was thinking with such non-aggressive system CDPR could increase its profit and I wouldn't call it "reaching into wallets". I bet there are some people who would be happy to acquire certain options to look fresh. It doesnt take away from those who would not bother with mtx, its an option for those who are willing to pay for some extra mile.
And it can be integrated seamlessly into the game world. Floating ads of clothing with option to buy in market area? I sense "no immersion breaking" exception here.

Or should CDPR focus no making all the cool gearments available with ingame currency from the get go?

What do you guys think?
(should I make a poll?)

 

[Snowflakez]

No microtransactions, period. They've already said they won't be in, so they absolutely should not add them in after the fact.

This is a singleplayer RPG first and foremost. I do not expect much from the multiplayer, but I definitely do not expect any form of microtransactions. There is no reason for them. CDPR has proven they can be successful without any multiplayer elements, so if they decide to add them, it's on them to keep it sustainable - not us. We shouldn't be paying for the devs ambitions beyond the $60 sticker price.

If there's going to be cosmetics (there will be) they should be purchasable only with in-game currency. If there are microtransactions in 2077 in any form, I will not buy the game. I've already done the same for EA, Ubisoft and now Warner Brothers. I gave Bethesda the benefit of the doubt since their system helps modders, though.

Just my two cents.

 

[Raxaphan]

Imagine the bad image they will get after breaking their "we leave greed to others", regarding the use of real money for in-game purchases.
"There is no better PR than a happy gamer recommending your title to their friends."

 

[Suhiira]

"There is no better PR than a happy gamer recommending your title to their friends."

And this works both ways as the current loot box scandal is demonstrating.
I'm probably (probably?!?) just a cynical old lady but I see most advertising as a waste of money. SURE, get your product out there when people can see it, but spending as much, or more, on marketing as the creation of the product itself?
S-t-u-p-i-d.

Also don't discount the long-term revenue a game can generate from continued sales, W3 is an excellent example. You don't need to make all your profits in the first couple months of sales IF your game is any good. That said I can see why there's such a push for it since so many games are clones or garbage to start with, they need short term sales because their product has no long term appeal. Word of mouth is a powerful sales tool, and not one many can rely on because their products don't deserve it.

 

[Raxaphan]

opinion

I agree with your whole post.
I understand marketing is needed to make the game known to more players. But I never got why is needed to spend much more money on the marketing campaign than on the development of the game.
And then the publishers want more money because the game cost too much to make, hiding the fact that the marketing costs were high not the game making.

Regarding the long term revenue. The majority of producers want more money faster for a not so good quality product or service. Only few think long term and want to have a good reputation, like the good old craftsmen.

 

[0248991]

Hello,
I guess - as others mentioned, there should not be additionally paid multiplayer content;
but instead, some "(cosmetic) upgrades" could be gained from (singleplayer) gameplay, achievements, looting, etc...

Problem is, as CP is mainly singleplayer, and there are even character roles that are not focused on killing people,
how to make multiplayer "background, to return to" activity (with all the customization, etc..),
but differ it from being casual Counter Strike like pvp shooter (with limited number of maps and scenarios)

Actually I have no idea how should multiplayer in this game work...

 

[MrQwerty227]

I'll gladly take cosmetic microtransactions if it means CDPR will continue support for the multiplayer. They are a business, and businesses need monetary incentive to do things. If they don't get money for making a kick ass multiplayer, then they aren't going to bother with it. I want this game to have a robust multiplayer in addition to a big singleplayer campaign so i can roam night city with my friends, and cosmetic microtransactions are the only realistic way for that to happen. All you people have to remember that CDPR is a company, not a charity. It's not their job to kiss your ass and give you everything you want.

 

[Snowflakez]

I'll gladly take cosmetic microtransactions if it means CDPR will continue support for the multiplayer. They are a business, and businesses need monetary incentive to do things. If they don't get money for making a kick ass multiplayer, then they aren't going to bother with it. I want this game to have a robust multiplayer in addition to a big singleplayer campaign so i can roam night city with my friends, and cosmetic microtransactions are the only realistic way for that to happen. All you people have to remember that CDPR is a company, not a charity. It's not their job to kiss your ass and give you everything you want.

Well, being that they've already said it's going to be a singleplayer-focused RPG, I don't think it's really asking CDPR to kiss anyone's ass by wanting it to stay that way. They've also said there won't be microtransactions.

So, I think we'll be OK on that front. If you want a multiplayer game to play, I recommend GTA Online. I hear that's pretty good.

I'd prefer CDPR keep making singleplayer RPGs, since that's their strong suit, and that's where their (core) audience lies. Plenty of other great multiplayer games for people to play.

 

[Sardukhar]

Well, being that they've already said it's going to be a singleplayer-focused RPG, I don't think it's really asking CDPR to kiss anyone's ass by wanting it to stay that way. They've also said there won't be microtransactions.

So, I think we'll be OK on that front. If you want a multiplayer game to play, I recommend GTA Online. I hear that's pretty good.

I'd prefer CDPR keep making singleplayer RPGs, since that's their strong suit, and that's where their (core) audience lies. Plenty of other great multiplayer games for people to play.

Not to play Devil's Advocate tooo much, since I mostly agree with you, but there are, for my tastes, very few great multiplayer games to play. And no Cyberpunk ones at all.

 

[Suhiira]

And then the publishers want more money because the game cost too much to make, hiding the fact that the marketing costs were high not the game making.

Exactly !

I'll gladly take cosmetic microtransactions if it means CDPR will continue support for the multiplayer. They are a business, and businesses need monetary incentive to do things. If they don't get money for making a kick ass multiplayer, then they aren't going to bother with it. I want this game to have a robust multiplayer in addition to a big singleplayer campaign so i can roam night city with my friends, and cosmetic microtransactions are the only realistic way for that to happen. All you people have to remember that CDPR is a company, not a charity. It's not their job to kiss your ass and give you everything you want.

One thing FAR to many people fail to take into account.
CP2077 is not an MMO, so any multi-player functionality will probably be peer-to-peer (or player operated servers) not server farms run, and paid for, by CDPR.
Thus zero ... ZERO ... cost to them.

 

[Suhiira]

Dual post deleted

 

[Snowflakez]

One thing FAR to many people fail to take into account.
CP2077 is not an MMO, so any multi-player functionality will probably be peer-to-peer (or player operated servers) not server farms run, and paid for, by CDPR.
Thus zero ... ZERO ... cost to them.

Yup! This is one reason I'm only slightly worried about it. Some sort of P2P, social hub-type thing would be just fine in my opinion, and it wouldn't force CDPR to have that ongoing investment (and thus microtransactions) that studios like Rockstar have. But, even in that scenario, it's resources being spent where I'd prefer they not be spent, so we'll just have to wait and see how far they go with it.

Not to play Devil's Advocate tooo much, since I mostly agree with you, but there are, for my tastes, very few great multiplayer games to play. And no Cyberpunk ones at all.

You're absolutely right, and that sucks, because I don't have some major problem with multiplayer games (I'd play the heck out of a multiplayer Cyberpunk TPS/FPS). I just don't think this should be the game that satisfies those cravings. In the same way I would love to play a Dishonored 2, steampunky-type stealth game coop. But I wouldn't want to dilute the core gameplay in favor of that.

If CDPR wants to make a completely standalone "Cyberpunk Online" game that is F2P and is supported by microtransactions with its own team and its own goals, I'm completely on board with that. I'd even play it, and probably buy microtransactions for it. But I'm only reallly OK with it under those circumstances.

 

[Draymar23]

I can already see that certain people will be disappointed. CP2077 won't have a big multiplayer or microtransactions. If you expect GTA Online with a cyberpunk skin, this game is not for you.

To be brutally honest gaming really needs less toxic online communities and greedy business practices and if you dont like it maybe Ubisoft and EA will be more your liking. CDPR do not make half assed FPS games for the typical COD bro dude, they make CRPGs for single player gamers who miss the way games used to be. Thats the way they have always been.

I don't know what else to say except that you cant expect developers to be something they are not. Thats why I respect CDPR so much, because they make games that they want to make and not bow to money or trends

I'm sorry if you are disappointed but I feel it needs to be said. I dont want people deluding themselves with false hopes. If it means being brutally honest, so be it. CP2077 will be a single player, microtransaction free CRPG and that is the way I want it.

 

[Sardukhar]

I

I'm sorry if you are disappointed but I feel it needs to be said. I dont want people deluding themselves with false hopes. If it means being brutally honest, so be it. CP2077 will be a single player, microtransaction free CRPG and that is the way I want it.

With multiplayer.

Actually.

If they go as they've planned. Which only they know. Not you and not I.

Also, don't be too brutally honest, thanks. That doesn't generally work out for pleasant, courteous communication and we prefer that to whatever brand of honesty is supposed to be on tap this week.

 

[wisielec]

I for one would like to see what CDPR can come up with regarding multiplayer (not taking away from sp mind you).
Do not get me wrong, I'm all about sp campaign and rpg - I joined the forums way before TW1 hit the shelves, so guess where my hopes lie
And I dont really like frantic shoot em ups. I prefer tactical, deadly realistic combat. That being said I realy long for some thoughtful Cyberpunk mp. Coz we have none. Co-op too would be welcomed.

 

[Snowflakez]

With multiplayer.

Actually.

If they go as they've planned. Which only they know. Not you and not I.

Also, don't be too brutally honest, thanks. That doesn't generally work out for pleasant, courteous communication and we prefer that to whatever brand of honesty is supposed to be on tap this week.

In my family, we prefer a five fingered brand of honesty. Awareness, Education, Control, Acceptance and Punching.

I for one would like to see what CDPR can come up with regarding multiplayer (not taking away from sp mind you).
Do not get me wrong, I'm all about sp campaign and rpg - I joined the forums way before TW1 hit the shelves, so guess where my hopes lie
And I dont really like frantic shoot em ups. I prefer tactical, deadly realistic combat. That being said I realy long for some thoughtful Cyberpunk mp. Coz we have none. Co-op too would be welcomed.

Yeah.

Here's the thing... Whenever multiplayer enters the picture, by its very nature, it will detract from singleplayer. It is literally impossible for it not to unless it's a completely different team with its own funding. Resources are finite, no matter how much certain MP proponents would like to think otherwise (not attacking you or anyone, just something I've observed).

Now, that detraction does not always need to be significant, or even noticeable. You can make a fun MP experience without anybody noticing the difference in SP. But it exists.

Naturally, I would prefer there be no MP at all, and every single dollar be spent on making the SP experience as fantastic as is humanly possible.

Clearly, that will not happen here. CDPR has already said there will be MP. So... It comes down to what form is acceptable for me (And for you, and for Sard, and for Su, and for every other player on the planet).

Personally...

I think most of us (not all, clearly) can agree that huge servers and the lootboxes/microtransactions that almost always accompany them are generally not acceptable. Not from CDPR, at any rate. They've paddled themselves up that creek, they'll have to keep going or risk an awful lot of backlash from their fans.

So, what's the next logical step? Well, some have suggested a Dark Souls-like experience. No specific quests, per se (those require writers' time, as well as voice acting, storyboarding, and probably unique character models, outfits and animations), but just a sort of a "run around the city and let your buddies drop in to do dynamic/non-scripted events" experience. To be clear, I'm not saying this would be easy to implement. But, hopefully, it'd be an awful lot cheaper than the alternatives.

My ideal experience, though, is nothing more than seamless "social hub" type areas. Bars and lounges, that sort of thing. Players can opt in to this experience (maybe it's even turned on by default), and when a player enters a bar, they encounter other players. This connection happens over P2P (Peer to Peer), so no server costs at all. Players can play mini games with each other, sit in chairs, maybe even jack in to a nearby game console and have some sort of free-flowing, lightweight VR PvP experience.

I believe an experience like this (assuming voice chat is disabled by default and text chat can be, as well) can actually enhance the singleplayer experience. Yes, you will encounter trolls and people who will run around in circles and generally break your immersion. If that happens frequently, you can opt out of the experience. But I don't think that will be the majority of people. We play games like this because we want to be immersed and enjoy ourselves - we don't play CDPR RPGs for the same reason we play Call of Duty. That competitive, jerk-bag mentality probably won't be as prevalent.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Gleipnir3]

Depends. If it is 100% pure cosmetic and done well, and priced correctly, ONLY for the Multiplayer part; then I am okay with it. That isn't greedy. Greedy is gambling with lootboxes for weapons and gear that can break the game. Microtransactions are not simply "Black and white". And Cosmetics don't do anything other than make you look fancy. Just because CDPR said "leave greed to others" doesn't mean if they put in cosmetic buying that they are also greedy. Not to mention their history at releasing very good Expansions, and the free DLC. If they have the MP have a Cosmetics System to buy into at proper price points then there is no issue, and TBH they earned it. Even more so it's silly to boycott a game over MTs when you don't even know what kind they will be, or if they will even be in it... However, no 19.99 for a damn jacket, that's just silly. 99Cent skins and clothing is fine and makes sense as online components that are planned to be expanded require more money as you have human beings working on them and they have bills to pay. Eventually, all the money from the 60$ price tag gets used up and the devs need to make money. This is just an indie studio who lucked out with a government loan and was able to hire talented devs.

Also, where did CDPR say specifically "There will be no microtransactions" exactly?

Now if they put microtransactions into the Singleplayer, then I'll have an issue. SP should always be 100% delivered at the 60$ pricetag that offers a 40-50Hours worth of gameplay. DLC needs to be meaningful, and expansions MUST be worth the investment which CDPR has proven they can do (Look at Expansions for Witcher 3 for reference.)

 

[Snowflakez]

Depends. If it is 100% pure cosmetic and done well, and priced correctly, ONLY for the Multiplayer part; then I am okay with it. That isn't greedy. Greedy is gambling with lootboxes for weapons and gear that can break the game. Microtransactions are not simply "Black and white". And Cosmetics don't do anything other than make you look fancy. Just because CDPR said "leave greed to others" doesn't mean if they put in cosmetic buying that they are also greedy. Not to mention their history at releasing very good Expansions, and the free DLC. If they have the MP have a Cosmetics System to buy into at proper price points then there is no issue, and TBH they earned it. Even more so it's silly to boycott a game over MTs when you don't even know what kind they will be, or if they will even be in it... However, no 19.99 for a damn jacket, that's just silly. 99Cent skins and clothing is fine and makes sense as online components that are planned to be expanded require more money as you have human beings working on them and they have bills to pay. Eventually, all the money from the 60$ price tag gets used up and the devs need to make money. This is just an indie studio who lucked out with a government loan and was able to hire talented devs.

Also, where did CDPR say specifically "There will be no microtransactions" exactly?

Now if they put microtransactions into the Singleplayer, then I'll have an issue. SP should always be 100% delivered at the 60$ pricetag that offers a 40-50Hours worth of gameplay. DLC needs to be meaningful, and expansions MUST be worth the investment which CDPR has proven they can do (Look at Expansions for Witcher 3 for reference.)

Multiplayer, unless it's standalone, is part of a $60 experience. I will not buy the game if it has any microtransactions in it whatsoever. I am paying full price. I expect all of the content. No nickel and diming of any kind. I do not care who the company is. CDPR doesn't get a free pass because they are better than most. Rockstar pulled a bait and switch on me back when I bought GTA V by adding microtransactions in after the fact (no pre-release info mentioned that, as far as I remember...), but as long as I'm given a heads up, I can make an informed decision.

If they want to put microtransactions in their games, they can make them F2P. If they want to make multiplayer some big part of the game (Absolutely no indication that that will be the case so far), that's their problem, not mine.

Not Joe's. Not Bob's. Not my dog's. CDPR's. The costs of such a system are purely for them to deal with, and I for one will not be financing it for them.

To me, it's like when other AAA publishers add a bunch of extra multiplayer features to singleplayer campaigns that nobody ever asked for, and then they add microtransactions because "multiplayer is just so expensive to run." Well that's not really my problem, is it, hypothetical AAA publisher?

Also, I think it's a bit silly to say it's a bit silly for people to boycott a game over microtransactions. People have different opinions, and some of us happen to feel very strongly about this issue. Nothing is silly about that. We're just sick of AAA companies reaching into our wallets whenever they get the chance. Again, CDPR is not special, as much as I love and trust them.

I should point out that I actually fully trust CDPR not to implement any microtransactions at all. That is 100% my expectation. If they disappoint me, I'll deal with that when it comes, but for now, they've earned at least a wee bit of goodwill. I think many will agree.

The "games are just so expensive to make" excuse doesn't fly with me. CDPR is absolutely killing it with The Witcher 3 as far as sales go, and that had no microtransactions whatsoever. None. Nada. Zilch. And they're running Gwent as well, which is basically their "games as a service" title already.

However, you can do as you please with your own money. That's the beauty of being a consumer. I don't actually have to support what I consider crappy business practices if I don't want to. I owe CDPR nothing. Similarly, if you feel they deserve your extra cash, you can give it to them if they go that route.

 

[Gleipnir3]

Multiplayer, unless it's standalone, is part of a $60 experience. I will not buy the game if it has any microtransactions in it whatsoever. I am paying full price. I expect all of the content. No nickel and diming of any kind. I do not care who the company is. CDPR doesn't get a free pass because they are better than most. Rockstar pulled a bait and switch on me back when I bought GTA V by adding microtransactions in after the fact (no pre-release info mentioned that, as far as I remember...), but as long as I'm given a heads up, I can make an informed decision.

If they want to put microtransactions in their games, they can make them F2P. If they want to make multiplayer some big part of the game (Absolutely no indication that that will be the case so far), that's their problem, not mine.

Not Joe's. Not Bob's. Not my dog's. CDPR's. The costs of such a system are purely for them to deal with, and I for one will not be financing it for them.

To me, it's like when other AAA publishers add a bunch of extra multiplayer features to singleplayer campaigns that nobody ever asked for, and then they add microtransactions because "multiplayer is just so expensive to run." Well that's not really my problem, is it, hypothetical AAA publisher?

Also, I think it's a bit silly to say it's a bit silly for people to boycott a game over microtransactions. People have different opinions, and some of us happen to feel very strongly about this issue. Nothing is silly about that. We're just sick of AAA companies reaching into our wallets whenever they get the chance. Again, CDPR is not special, as much as I love and trust them.

I should point out that I actually fully trust CDPR not to implement any microtransactions at all. That is 100% my expectation. If they disappoint me, I'll deal with that when it comes, but for now, they've earned at least a wee bit of goodwill. I think many will agree.

The "games are just so expensive to make" excuse doesn't fly with me. CDPR is absolutely killing it with The Witcher 3 as far as sales go, and that had no microtransactions whatsoever. None. Nada. Zilch. And they're running Gwent as well, which is basically their "games as a service" title already.

However, you can do as you please with your own money. That's the beauty of being a consumer. I don't actually have to support what I consider crappy business practices if I don't want to. I owe CDPR nothing. Similarly, if you feel they deserve your extra cash, you can give it to them if they go that route.

I do see your standpoint on that, and I will admit that I'm not one who fully supports MTs. Sorry if I state the as silly though as I feel there are grey areas and differences, and maybe you can help me understand your part of the discussion with answers to some of my normally unanswered questions. Feel free to educate me as learning is a good thing.

Note: The following is not directed at you personally, but towards the more militant types who take their anger out on people who even buy one MT on even a F2P game. Which I'll admit I'm guilty for being a Cosmetics whore, but I fuckin HATE Pay To Win/LootBoxes/Weapon crates as those are outright unfair to everyone, especially in PvP based games. NTM Loot boxes, I feel with others, are gambling; and that is a big nono.

1: Why do many people feel that basic format MTs are a violation when it's 100% Cosmetic Only, offers no gamebreaking mechanics, and by all means is just skins which only change looks not stats?
2: Why do people feel that others buying cosmetic only items affect their game and feel that?
3: While we can all agree that setting up MTs to be gambling systems for gear/buffs (Stat Changing/Power Leveling), and by all means that is 100% wrong; the flip side is that MTs are generalized and seen as all bad when a majority is cosmetics. Thus why are all MTs put into the generalization they are all bad?
4: Why do people feel an non-intrusive "Option" = "Having money stolen from you."? (Note: This is directed to Cosmetics only. Not those damn Weapon Crates and Armor Boxes, especially when it's PvP based. I hate that crap. Even if the game is F2P, the whole Pay To Win thing is outright trash.)

 

[Suhiira]

1: Why do many people feel that basic format MTs are a violation when it's 100% Cosmetic Only, offers no gamebreaking mechanics, and by all means is just skins which only change looks not stats?
2: Why do people feel that others buying cosmetic only items affect their game and feel that?
3: While we can all agree that setting up MTs to be gambling systems for gear/buffs (Stat Changing/Power Leveling), and by all means that is 100% wrong; the flip side is that MTs are generalized and seen as all bad when a majority is cosmetics. Thus why are all MTs put into the generalization they are all bad?
4: Why do people feel an non-intrusive "Option" = "Having money stolen from you."? (Note: This is directed to Cosmetics only. Not those damn Weapon Crates and Armor Boxes, especially when it's PvP based. I hate that crap. Even if the game is F2P, the whole Pay To Win thing is outright trash.)

If all the above were true I'd have zero issues.
But it rarely is.

Now ... if you're talking some sort of persistent (be it characters, the world, whatever) game (of course generally multi-player) then go ahead and sell all the weapon/armor/whatever skins you want. If people want to pay to look different that's just fine.

But the MAJOR point is ... if you buy a (primarily) single-player game you should get the whole game, not part of it.