Except as far as I'm aware, the multiplayer most likely won't be 50 quid. It will likely be free as long as you have the base game.
Exactly. People won't want micros even if the main money you paid went into the singleplayer.
Ok, after reading an article I want to point out the misleading thread title. Apparently CDPR is talking about a yet UNANNOUNCED cyberpunk multiplayer game, not CP2077's multiplayer. In my opinion the difference is quite big, and at least I was misled by the title of this thread. As in, the multiplayer is a completely different game, and could be wildly different stylistically, or even an android game for all we know..
www.gamespot.com
www.gamespot.com
Cyberpunk 2077 Multiplayer Spin-Off May Have Microtransactions; PS5, Xbox Scarlett Under Consideration
CD Projekt Red says players can expect "wise" and fair microtransactions; PS5 and Scarlett support could come later.
Cyberpunk 2077 Dev Talks Multiplayer, Censorship, And More
Q&A: We speak with the head of CD Projekt Red's Krakow studio about a number of hot topics surrounding the much-anticipated PS4, Xbox One, and PC game.
Microtransactions did definitely ruin that game, its the biggest reason for the Opressior and every other OP weapon. The weapons are made ridiculously overpowered and expensive so once you die to one of them you would either
A. Grind for millennia to get one so you too can be OP
B. Spend the money on MTX and buy one so you too can be OP
And guess which one is easier and more used.
Which makes it...50 quid.
If you require the base game to play the multiplayer, then the multiplayer is not free.
Post automatically merged:
One of my biggest fears from the very beginning as soon as a multiplayer mode was announced for CDPR is pretty much what is being hinted at here.
Everyone, even CDPR, wants in on that sweet, sweet microtransaction loot.
So...what about sizable, meaty, paid expansions for the single player game? Will we get a Heart of Stone and Blood of Wine equivalents? If so, will they be delayed by the focus on a multiplayer mode that I have ZERO interest in so that CDPR can get that microtransaction revenue hose connected?
Obviously, I am going to wait and see here. I've already preordered the collector's edition for PC. But let's just say every time I even hear about time and effort being spent on the multiplayer mode, particularly now that we're talking microtransactions, it falls under "DO. NOT. WANT." for this customer personally.
Last edited:
Here's an actual quote from the financial results transcript... nowhere does it say microtransactions are planned.
We know that MP and SP will be separate. If MP will be a free game, then it needs to have some kind of monetization. People thinking otherwise are not really connected to the reality.
As long as only cosmetics can be bough, without any additional benefits, without the lootbox, I mean "surprise mechanics" crap, then I'm all for it. Cosmetics are completely optional in MP game.
EDIT:
Just watch this:
As long as only cosmetics can be bough, without any additional benefits, without the lootbox, I mean "surprise mechanics" crap, then I'm all for it. Cosmetics are completely optional in MP game.
EDIT:
Just watch this:
Last edited:
People are unfortunately going off the hook about it, and it’s currently damaging CDPR’s rep.
I guess most people are used to lies and bs from other gaming companies that we’ve come to expect the worst. Although I do feel they should give a short statement to clarify because this isn’t gonna stop unfortunately.
Yeah, it's important to note that there has been no mention of microtransactions - just the fact that they're thinking about monetization options. It is too early to get riled up over this, but I also think that if there's any chance of influencing the decision-making on that model, it is now while it's still being deliberated, so here are my general thoughts on this.
I can only really judge what CDPR might be thinking in terms of monetization based on their existing MP title (Gwent), which - they've stated in interviews - is a sort of testing ground.
From what I can see, Gwent's model is to take predatory monetization models that exist, and making them slightly less predatory (still predatory, just not to the extreme that the industry has taken those models). E.g. card packs similar to those in Hearthstone, but you get to pick between 3 options for the highest value card, while being less stingy with the rate at which you acquire free currency. I have also seen promotional e-mails for the new card expansions, prompting me to pre-order in order to receive exclusive in-game items - the "CDPR twist" being that they're cosmetic. Mind you, all the while stating multiple times that exclusive in-game content tied to pre-orders is something they don't do.
Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I believe that CDPR aspires to be an industry leader in terms of being fair to their customers and not trying to milk them for money. My current impression, at least where MP seems to be concerned, is that the goal is to follow the rest of the "industry standards" but only from a bit of a distance, so it doesn't look as bad.
Personally, I would not be happy with that, and I hope their future decisions in this regard are better than the ones they've made so far. I am, however, worried that CDPR may believe that their monetization decisions have been on point so far, since the reception of Gwent's model has been mostly positive. My opinion is that the industry is just so aggressively monetizing games that even something that in reality is "not as bad" is perceived as "good", and that can lead to problems and disappointment down the line.
So, with all of that said, as I mentioned at the start: we still don't how CDPR is going to implement MP and what this monetization they speak of is going to entail, so we can't draw any conclusions just yet, but a dose of healthy scepticism and consctructive feedback based on what we do know is likely not a bad idea.
I can only really judge what CDPR might be thinking in terms of monetization based on their existing MP title (Gwent), which - they've stated in interviews - is a sort of testing ground.
From what I can see, Gwent's model is to take predatory monetization models that exist, and making them slightly less predatory (still predatory, just not to the extreme that the industry has taken those models). E.g. card packs similar to those in Hearthstone, but you get to pick between 3 options for the highest value card, while being less stingy with the rate at which you acquire free currency. I have also seen promotional e-mails for the new card expansions, prompting me to pre-order in order to receive exclusive in-game items - the "CDPR twist" being that they're cosmetic. Mind you, all the while stating multiple times that exclusive in-game content tied to pre-orders is something they don't do.
Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I believe that CDPR aspires to be an industry leader in terms of being fair to their customers and not trying to milk them for money. My current impression, at least where MP seems to be concerned, is that the goal is to follow the rest of the "industry standards" but only from a bit of a distance, so it doesn't look as bad.
Personally, I would not be happy with that, and I hope their future decisions in this regard are better than the ones they've made so far. I am, however, worried that CDPR may believe that their monetization decisions have been on point so far, since the reception of Gwent's model has been mostly positive. My opinion is that the industry is just so aggressively monetizing games that even something that in reality is "not as bad" is perceived as "good", and that can lead to problems and disappointment down the line.
So, with all of that said, as I mentioned at the start: we still don't how CDPR is going to implement MP and what this monetization they speak of is going to entail, so we can't draw any conclusions just yet, but a dose of healthy scepticism and consctructive feedback based on what we do know is likely not a bad idea.
Which came first, the egg or the hen?
You are saying that because there were microtransactions, the devs had to introduce something as broken and overpowered as the oppressor? I don't agree. If they had just not done that, things wouldve been more or less ok even with microtransactions.
Post automatically merged:
And may I point out the reason why those things seem so common with CDPR?
It's because they release information in interviews direct to the journalists instead of utilizing their own forums or website for a composed message with exhaustive (and correct) information. The message given to the media will easily become a "broken telephone" where things get lost in translation or misinterpreted. Especially when content creators start quoting each other because they did not receive a direct interview (information was not distributed equally).
You blame internet. Well, CDPR is making it EASY for the internet to do its thing.
Last edited:
surprisedpikachu.jpg
They have a fair monetization in Gwent don't they?
They have a fair monetization in Gwent don't they?
They did said "type of monetization" not microtransaction, that could mean from extra DLC´s to skins (which would be really really disappointing)
I am ok if they put "monetization" for stuff like DLC´s that were for Witcher 3 but if they put microtransactions after they said:
"Worry not. When thinking CP2077, think nothing less than TW3 — huge single player, open world, story-driven RPG. No hidden catch, you get what you pay for — no bullshit, just honest gaming like with Wild Hunt. We leave greed to others. "
Still there are two things to point out here they said "single player" there was no mention of multiplayer.
Since I already pre ordered game and they do have solid reputation of respecting customers I will give them benefit of a doubt but, that is always how things start.
I do hope CD Project Red will not go "Bethesda route" because atm I think they are one of rare companies with proper games.... I do hope they will not take that from us.
I am ok if they put "monetization" for stuff like DLC´s that were for Witcher 3 but if they put microtransactions after they said:
"Worry not. When thinking CP2077, think nothing less than TW3 — huge single player, open world, story-driven RPG. No hidden catch, you get what you pay for — no bullshit, just honest gaming like with Wild Hunt. We leave greed to others. "
Still there are two things to point out here they said "single player" there was no mention of multiplayer.
Since I already pre ordered game and they do have solid reputation of respecting customers I will give them benefit of a doubt but, that is always how things start.
I do hope CD Project Red will not go "Bethesda route" because atm I think they are one of rare companies with proper games.... I do hope they will not take that from us.
Yes. It's 100% possible to be successful without ever spending real money on the game.
I see no reason to expect anything different IF they eventually do confirm microtransactions with Cyberpunk's multiplayer.
----------------------------
The multiplayer component could end up being a separate, paid DLC. That would be a form of monetization without microtransactions.
We simply will not know until they announce something further and since the multiplayer is in its early stages, plus they're only just looking at different monetization options at this point, there might not be any announcements in quite a while. Time will tell.
Clickbait headlines, articles, and videos will keep appearing, no doubt, but there's no need to believe them. Official sources, such as that transcript, are far, far more trustworthy, albeit also far, far less numerous.
The egg, of course.
Yes, the, "Microtransactions are evil.", drama always conveniently ignores the implementation. I'm not a fan of them in general but when the stuff you gain by forking out money is purely cosmetic it's not exactly hurting much. Queue the slippery slope arguments. The reality is the tool itself isn't the core problem in this case. It's the way it's utilized. So yeah, jumping on the microtransaction hate bandwagon comes off as a bit premature when, to my knowledge, we do not even know what CP2077 MP is even going to look like. Let alone whether the premise of this thread even applies.
Define fair. Forgive me, but when someone claims the MP portion of CP2077 would have "fair" microtransactions, if it does at all, it sounds like PR speak. In other words, it means absolutely nothing.
I think Gwent being referred to as generous is more to do with the mechanics behind card collecting. It's not so much the pricing is "fair" as it's relatively easy to accrue a collection without paying for it. Of course, I'm probably not the best opinion to source for Gwent, as I stopped playing it for... reasons.
It's also probably important to note Gwent is a completely different animal compared to CP2077. On a number of levels.
