Multiplayer confirmed

+
I mean, I'd prefer they invest their resources elsewhere, but it is their game and it doesn't hurt the IP or lore.

Personally I'd prefer resources invested in their own "creation kit" similar to Bethesda's. Or more single-player content. Or even a TPP toggle for people.

I don't really think I've seen many, if any, single-player games that weren't negatively impacted by adding multiplayer.

All in all, if it's post-launch and we still get single-player expansions, and no micro/macrotransactions, then I'll be content.

If they made a new redkit I would be so happy.
Post automatically merged:

Why would they make PVE of any kind in MP when they have Single player for that ??? most of MP games are about PVP.

There are so many PVP games right now that it has become boring. There are literally almost zero games that are full fledge coop experiences that have released in the past 3 years.
 
MP huh. I am rarely a fan of it (last I liked was Mass Effect 3's, minus the whole mandatory thingy) but, say, a group raid on Arasaka, reenacting the swansong of Johnny does sound pretty exciting.
 
multiplayer's in the works


Don't really care either way. And not really unexpected as they've been "hinting" at wanting to do MP since TW3, I just hope it complements the RPG experience (e.g. Divinity Original Sin 1 and 2) instead of trying to go for the easy GTA Online money with "fun and fair" microtransactions (e.g. Gwent).
 
Neverwinter Nights 1 had some really great roleplaying shards back in the day. Those multiplayer servers also put out lots of assets and improvements that were used by the whole modding community (which was mostly focused on singleplayer). Many of those singleplayer campaings were a massive improvement over the OKish original campaign. Similar thing for Divintiy: Original Sin 1+2. Most multiplayer mods there can also be used in single player. But most of the time, i would agree with your assessment.
I admittedly haven't player Neverwinter Nights. As for the DoS series, I never tried the multiplayer aspect, but isn't it essentially coop? I think there's a difference between a coop multiplayer where you join someone's world and a multiplayer akin to Grand Theft Auto V or Battlefield.

Perhaps that's something I should have specified. My bad.
 
I think it's most likely going to be 'Night City Online' as a stand alone service, which could be interesting depending on how it's handled. If it's mostly PvE or PvEvP it could be fun. If it's going to be look both ways before crossing the street and then run over by an armored car by a 12-year old who's casting aspersions on my sexuality, then no.

The other by issue is monetization. While I understand the need to keep the lights on, how it's implemented will be the make or break of it here.

However the biggest question is, does Snowflakez still owe me a copy of the game? ;)
 
Assuming I buy the game at all (depends on the non-FPS combat mechanics) I'll certainly give multi-player a try. But I suspect as a non-FPS player I may as well just paint a target on my chest.
 
I admittedly haven't player Neverwinter Nights. As for the DoS series, I never tried the multiplayer aspect, but isn't it essentially coop?
You can play the original campaign in coop, but there is much more to it than that. There are whole modules with completely custom stories created by modders (e.g. in D&D setting, or another in a german P&P system called "Das schwarze Auge"). It has a great DM mode so you can have a godlike gamemaster player who dynamically reacts to player actions, spawns monsters and NPCs etc. Similar thing in Neverwinter nights (but the GM mode wasn't as involved or well supported by the devs so the modders had to create most tools).

I think there's a difference between a coop multiplayer where you join someone's world and a multiplayer akin to Grand Theft Auto V or Battlefield.
Definitely. But i'm hoping the Cyberpunk 2077 multiplayer includes some type of coop or at least mission based team vs. team, not just a pure shooter in the Cyberpunk world. So far, nothing specific was released, so multiplayer could be anything...
 
You can play the original campaign in coop, but there is much more to it than that. There are whole modules with completely custom stories created by modders (e.g. in D&D setting, or another in a german P&P system called "Das schwarze Auge"). It has a great DM mode so you can have a godlike gamemaster player who dynamically reacts to player actions, spawns monsters and NPCs etc. Similar thing in Neverwinter nights (but the GM mode wasn't as involved or well supported by the devs so the modders had to create most tools).


Definitely. But i'm hoping the Cyberpunk 2077 multiplayer includes some type of coop or at least mission based team vs. team, not just a pure shooter in the Cyberpunk world. So far, nothing specific was released, so multiplayer could be anything...
That's pretty nifty actually.
 
I'll play it if it's coop like Divinity Original Sin 1 or 2. Again, if we get anywhere near a giant PvP crapshow like GTA:O, my interest will be precisely 0. I'm encouraged by the "if we do it, it'll be our own style" stuff.

My ideal experience is either a separate coop campaign, or a continuously-updated, shared-world 4-player coop dealio. Accept missions, invite friends to your world or vice versa and explore.

You can join my team Su. We'll die gloriously together.

Can I come, too?
 
I'll play it if it's coop like Divinity Original Sin 1 or 2. Again, if we get anywhere near a giant PvP crapshow like GTA:O, my interest will be precisely 0. I'm encouraged by the "if we do it, it'll be our own style" stuff.

My ideal experience is either a separate coop campaign, or a continuously-updated, shared-world 4-player coop dealio. Accept missions, invite friends to your world or vice versa and explore.



Can I come, too?

Coop on Divinity Origin Sin 2 was soo good. I think it worked because the game was mostly built around having a party system. Not sure how it would work in Cyberpunk though. Only way i am imagining it is the second player going invisible during dialogue/cutscenes. I wouldn't mind though because co-op usually is really fun and i could look past these small issues.
 
Coop on Divinity Origin Sin 2 was soo good. I think it worked because the game was mostly built around having a party system. Not sure how it would work in Cyberpunk though. Only way i am imagining it is the second player going invisible during dialogue/cutscenes. I wouldn't mind though because co-op usually is really fun and i could look past these small issues.
I've suggested a reasonably fleshed-out idea in the past. I'll have to track down my post for the details, but the gist was, you could go to various bars throughout Night City and find a Fixer (or mission board, whichever is more appropriate for the setting). These Fixers would have various missions available (perhaps repeatable, depending on story impact and such), and would be designed for certain party compositions. Different missions would be ideal for different approaches and party sizes, too.

Example: Corporate espionage mission.
Recommended party size: 2
Recommended roles: Netrunner, Solo

The bar would act as a "lobby," and you could post your "Call to action" somehow. Other players can visit their own bars and accept your offer, joining your team seamlessly (they pop into your bar). Then, you hop in a vehicle (or vehicles) and drive to the mission location. Scope out the area and proceed.

Your objective is to swipe a briefcase (could be more interesting than this, just an example) tucked in an executive office. You can go the "loud" approach, but it'd be extremely risky: stealth and a low body-count is preferred here. Your client gives your team a bonus if it's never spotted. The Netrunner goes in first, sneaking into the building to find an access point. Prior to the mission, you can divert some of your end payout to get select advantages, such as a "leave the back door unlocked" request to a paid-off janitor or simply inside intel on a bonus objective.

Anyway, Netrunner breaks into the system, disables the security system for a limited amount of time, and monitors his Solo buddy through cameras. The solo then needs to sneak his way to the office mentioned before, avoiding or knocking out enemies as he goes. Cooperation and communication would be key here. To facilitate those who don't use voice comms, the netrunner would need some sort of "ping" system to warn his buddy where enemies are, or tell him where to go, etc.

As you successfully complete missions to your clients' specifications, your reputation rank (or MP Street Cred) goes up and you and your squad will get tougher missions with the promise of better rewards. Missions would be added by CDPR regularly. Not sure about monetization, ideally a one-off or free expansion. Plenty of revenue will come from sales when people just buy the game.

This is just an overview. But I think it'd be very fun, immersive, and unique. Things would be quite free-form, too. Aside from getting the briefcase, there don't need to be any mandatory "you must do this in this way"-type rules, other than client/fixer requests.

The trick is, some retooling would be necessary. You'd need to expand the skill system (At least in MP) to account for interesting new use cases, and you'd want to add some "supporty" abilities as well. For example, maybe a few MedTech skills for Techies to take advantage of.
 
Last edited:
What's the over/under that CP2077 multiplayer essentially ends up being GTA Online complete with mxt and "Eddie Cards"?

My jaded, veteran gamer prediction is that it's all but confirmed.
 
multiplayer will literally released likely 1-2 years after launch, why are people assuming this is going to effect the singleplayer of this game, AT ALL?

Just because they are hoping to do a multiplayer iteration of this wonderful IP after already so much planned stuff (singleplayer content (probably something along the lines of Blood and Wine, which released a full year after release)), it is now all of a sudden going to leak all over the singleplayer game that is coming out likely 2 years prior?

Some of you are really reaching in order to be upset, it's honestly impressive what lengths you go
 
What's the over/under that CP2077 multiplayer essentially ends up being GTA Online complete with mxt and "Eddie Cards"?

My jaded, veteran gamer prediction is that it's all but confirmed.

I don't think it'll get quite that bad, but some variant of it, certainly. MTX are almost an inevitability. But CDPR will not under any circumstances do pay-to-win, that much I'm certain of. If there are MTX, they will be cosmetic-only, and they will NOT be loot boxes. I'm betting on straight-up cosmetic purchases like Heroes of the Storm used to have (as well as tons of other games).

They do have a reputation to keep, and while they know ANY sort of "service based" game or game mode will get scrutiny from fans, they will do their best to keep it fair. And rest assured they will offer "freeloaders" (I.E., those who have paid $60 for the game but not bought any MTX) a great value as well.

Those are my predictions. Let's see who ends up being right.

multiplayer will literally released likely 1-2 years after launch, why are people assuming this is going to effect the singleplayer of this game, AT ALL?

Just because they are hoping to do a multiplayer iteration of this wonderful IP after already so much planned stuff (singleplayer content (probably something along the lines of Blood and Wine, which released a full year after release)), it is now all of a sudden going to leak all over the singleplayer game that is coming out likely 2 years prior?

Some of you are really reaching in order to be upset, it's honestly impressive what lengths you go

Who is assuming it will impact singleplayer? I mostly just saw people say the standard "As long as it doesn't impact SP, it's fine by me." Which it won't, thus it's fine by them.

Some people will reach to find upset people to be upset by, incidentally, even if the overwhelming majority of people are optimistic, cautiously optimistic, or neutral.
 
What's the over/under that CP2077 multiplayer essentially ends up being GTA Online complete with mxt and "Eddie Cards"?

My jaded, veteran gamer prediction is that it's all but confirmed.
I don't think it'll get quite that bad, but some variant of it, certainly. MTX are almost an inevitability. But CDPR will not under any circumstances do pay-to-win, that much I'm certain of. If there are MTX, they will be cosmetic-only, and they will NOT be loot boxes. I'm betting on straight-up cosmetic purchases like Heroes of the Storm used to have (as well as tons of other games).
They're not always bad either. Rainbow Six Siege is probably my favorite multiplayer game right now and it's loaded with microtransactions.

The way they're handled in the game are somewhat bad since 1.) They give access to new operators, which are usually unbalanced at launch, 2.) Access to items you don't get free, 3.) Way overpriced stuff (both real and in-game currency), 4.) Three different currencies to deal with.

That being said, I've never purchased anything with real money and I always have access to operators when they're released to public because I don't care about skins. I play maybe once a week and I still have 60-70k renown saved up between releases. They also don't ruin the balance of the game and it's a great multiplayer (outside of teamkillers) and some skins are unlockable with gameplay (albeit rather infrequently).

CDPR can easily add stuff in without too many complaints if :
1.) It's just cosmetics, 2.) Is all accessible in-game, 3.) Add those cosmetics to the single-player portion as well when unlocked, 4.) Don't have fake currencies like "R6 Credits" or Bethesda's points. 5.)* Of course, still have single-player expansions.
 
Last edited:
They're not always bad either. Rainbow Six Siege is probably my favorite multiplayer game right now and it's loaded with microtransactions.

The way they're handled in the game are somewhat bad since 1.) They give access to new operators, which are usually unbalanced at launch, 2.) Access to items you don't get free, 3.) Way overpriced stuff (both real and in-game currency), 4.) Three different currencies to deal with.

That being said, I've never purchased anything with real money and I always have access to operators when they're released to public because I don't care about skins. I play maybe once a week and I still have 60-70k renown saved up between releases. They also don't ruin the balance of the game and it's a great multiplayer (outside of teamkillers).

CDPR can easily add stuff in without too many complaints if :
1.) It's just cosmetics, 2.) Is all accessible in-game, 3.) Add those cosmetics to the single-player portion as well when unlocked, 4.) Don't have fake currencies like "R6 Credits" or Bethesda's points.

I'm against MTX in any premium-priced ($40-$60) game, but it becomes acceptable (to me) if the game is a free add-on to a base product or free-to-play outright, is multiplayer, and receives regular updates, which is almost certainly what CDPR is planning here.

In that case, I'm only OK with them if they are cosmetic-only. In free-to-play games (and ONLY in F2P games), this restriction is lifted, so long as everything can be earned in-game through effort; even if it takes a while. See Warframe for an example of a decent and fair F2P title (though I don't care for the actual gameplay much). Yes, there's some grinding involved, but it isn't completely outrageous, and it is free.

Basically, my logic is, if a company is expending resources to support a game with new content (outside of a few free DLCs) at no up-front cost to the consumer, I can accept them asking for additional money in a fair, transparent, and non-game-breaking way. Anything else and I won't be getting involved with it.
 
multiplayer will literally released likely 1-2 years after launch, why are people assuming this is going to effect the singleplayer of this game, AT ALL?

Just because they are hoping to do a multiplayer iteration of this wonderful IP after already so much planned stuff (singleplayer content (probably something along the lines of Blood and Wine, which released a full year after release)), it is now all of a sudden going to leak all over the singleplayer game that is coming out likely 2 years prior?

Some of you are really reaching in order to be upset, it's honestly impressive what lengths you go

I don't see a lot of people being concerned about the singleplayer of just 'this game' but rather being concerned about the long term future of CDPR's overall focus.

I mean... R* completely moved away from SP DLCs after GTA online, no sign of starfield from BGS in the near future after fallout 76 (even though their last SP game is already nearly 4 years old) and Bioware completely changed its theme for live support oriented games (After Anthem, DA4 is rumored to be completely rebooted for incorporating live elements). With all these happening to all the once beloved SP game developers, can you really blame people for their concerns?

Edit: As someone said in this thread, CDPR seems to be well aware of this concern for now as they made the second tweet. Personally I just hope this awareness will stay in the long run.
 
Top Bottom