- Status
that is awesome to hear. the only piece of new left is whether or not we have Roles or not..
REDs' gonna be fending off rumors from YouTube leeches and provocators and gaming "journalists" up until CP2077 announce or what?
Everyone now just pokes company and generating an outrage.
Everyone now just pokes company and generating an outrage.
metalmaniac21;n9860871 said:
It sort of pissed me off that Pretty Good Gaming was so sloppy with this particular video. I have no problem with people uncovering actual info on potentially unsavory practices from CDPR (I loved YongYea's video on 'em, for example), but so many polish people have looked at the same interview and come to a wildly different conclusion. When referencing "games as a service", CPDR was only talking about Gwent - there was no mention of CP2077 in that context, only that they thought it would "make more money than the witcher 3" (duh).
It's just poor journalism and a lack of fact checking. It absolutely damages their credibility in my eyes, and I liked them quite a bit prior to this.
metalmaniac21;n9860871 said:
Yeah.
It's good to keep one's guard up with these things just in case, though. Sometimes rumors turn out to be true.
The Fallout 4 voiced protagonist-scene leak as well as the rumors for the removal of skills (for example) was widely considered fake, "they'd never do that, they haven't done it before so why would they now", until of course it all got confirmed.
animalfather;n9860821 said:
And the set protagonist.. that worries me a lot.
Lisbeth_Salander;n9861321 said:
Yeah, that'll be the next thing to worry about for sure. I mean, they've already said that it won't be a fixed protagonist, but it's been a long time since they did, so things could have changed by now. Here's hoping we still get to create our own character.
Well ,whether it was a mistranslation of just poor choice of words on the CEO's part, they need to be more careful when it comes to the information they put out as this was brought on themselves. Always cool when they are willing to listen and respond to the audience.
Lisbeth_Salander;n9861321 said:
i dont mind it if we have multiple concurrent ones like in GTA 5. but just having 1 with a set role and personality, then no.
Osidlus;n9860581 said:I think as an extra resource of income they may implement some soft advertising for real life companies. As an example there may be running news that in 'Tacoma' district of Nightcity the police forces acquired sponsorship say from Ruger. With impact that police will act more softly since more cops in service as opposed to seldom but brute interventions by ED209s. Or lets say gyms with some sticker on doors may be sponsored by some real life company etc.
Playing a virtual real life advertisement is a truly awful idea. People play these games to experience a different world for entertainment, not for them to be a constant reminder of advertisements pushed from everywhere while living your actual life. Ease up on the drugs.
BeastModeIron;n9861611 said:
Thanks for your care, I will leave you with your extrapolation ...
The setting is corporate heavy- just in different depths so I can't see that disruptive as you draw it. Game will need some sort continuous income and skins may not be enough so what are the other choices? fees...
Osidlus;n9861651 said:
Well generally speaking, a game developer should make a good enough game to earn as much income as possible solely based on the quality of the game they're making for their customers and continually make sales year after year at full retail price and retain a high value for the game over time if it sells well.
The game doesn't need nor require monetization for real world advertisements built into the game just because the game world setting is that of an ultra modern society in a ultra modern world. I'm certainly not paying to play a game that promote real advertisement to me as I'm playing. If that's not intrusive and disruptive, then I have no hope for gaming as I know it. The setting of 2020-2077 is built entirely of its own lore and fictional concepts to have a need for such an intrusive and incompetent game design features like that. No fees, No Micro transactions, No nickels, No dimes, and Hell NO live advertisements.
Are you trollin me right now because... damn!
Last edited by a moderator:
Willowhugger;n9858911 said:
You miss my point, and GTA doesn't really make yours, GTA5's single player, was abandoned due to the Multiplayer Mode. Rockstar turned their back on it, and failed to support the single player portion of the game, just milked that online trash. I never played that game, mostly because they were focused on that Multiplayer mode.
As I've already said it splits the resources of the project, and it's not so much about how the game ends up.
They can still be good games, even with the resources split.
It doesn't really matter if the multi-player a traditional style, or the "invade your game type".
Like Dark Souls/Dying Light, but it still diverts resources from the core single player game.
Even when single player turns out great, if for example, about 20% of the resources have been put towards a Multi-player mode.
Then it's lost 20% of the potential greatness it should have had, and is diminished as a result.
I'd much rather see then focus on one, or the other, and having long given up on all multiplayer, I want it to be single player only.
As for trusting CDPR not to go down the Loot Box/Micro-transaction route, they already have.
GWENT, already exists to say they will, and that ended any trust that they won't repeat that.
Players can use cash to buy GWENT cards by buying kegs (Loot Boxes), each keg contains five cards.
I don't play Mobile, FTP. or any Multiplayer due to microtransactions, and Loot Boxes, are a million times worse.
I refuse to even install Galaxy, and use GOG for the Classic Installers, it's why I use GOG for every game I can.
I can't even use the multi-player modes for newer releases that require their store client, and I prefer that.
That's not even relevant, to what I'm saying above, which is nothing to do with the monetisation model they may impose.
Game will be potentially better by only having one focus, whichever it is, adding a second, limits that potential, and my interest.
I don't want any "Game as a Service", I want only great Single Player Games, without any damn online service attached.
UhuruNUru;n9861761 said:
I'm going to "invade" in on this conversation, Haha, Get it? Dark Souls? Yes, the design of how multiplayer can be implemented would drastically change how much time and resources used to develop them. But not much in the case of a game like Dark Souls, all the resources for Level design and MP is built for both the core single player game, and also used for multiplayer. In the case of a game like GTA or most multiplayer arena shooters, its all built completely separately which would split resources which is why you see games with heavy MP modes have short campaigns if any at all.
CDPR approach to multiplayer is described as seamless so that pretty much throws the comparisons to Grand Theft Auto out of the window. I don't know for sure but i'd say it is akin to a Dark Souls or Destiny ish style of seamless online elements. SO the inclusion of these seamless online elements wouldn't be the traditional style of Call of duty GTA multiplayer therefore probably wouldn't impact any single player experience they intend to make. Online is coming, but I wouldn't worry.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok if this is 100% true and not a Public Relations (PR) type of thing from CD Projekt RED then my faith has been restored in humanity and that CD Projekt RED is the only golden and customer friendly AAA video game development company left on this planet.Snowflakez;n9860361 said:
I hope CD Projekt RED releases new armor, new guns, new vehicles, etc FOR FREE in the multiplayer like one new type once a week or like five new types once a month or something like that.
Balloers100;n9862341 said:
Im not so sure about that, we had plenty of developers in the past promise the public no micro transaction free dlc but in the end there still a company that needs to make a profit, somehow. in other words there's always a catch, but i truly hope im wrong about this.
- Status