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

+
Now if they did that BS from the very start then I'd be annoyed as that would be a pure EA move right there. And we all know how EA runs their MTs (Especially that Gambling crap.). You gotta give a game time, let people earn their stuff, get their monies worth, beat the SP mainline several times over, and explore all possibilities first.

And what you say does make sense. But a year after the game is out or so, and after a major expansion or two + like with TW3, free DLCs; what if they slam out a bunch of cosmetics for people to buy? Would that still be considered a bad business practice?

 
My personal rule for microtransactions. IF the game is F2P, I allow $10 for every 10 hours it holds my attention, to a MAXIMUM of $30. I can't even run my car for a buck an hour, which I need to make the money I just spent anyways. And it MUST be 10 hours. 9.5 doesn't cut it, because if you start making exceptions, you can convince yourself into anything you want.

IF the game is NOT F2P, then I piss on the desk of the pencil pushing marketing moron who decided to make it be so. Or I wish I could, but it's the thought that counts.
 
Gleipnir3;n10539892 said:
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.

No worries, I completely understand, I dont' take offense or anything like that. And I actually really have nothing against people who buy microtransactions, it's none of my business. All I care about is getting the full experience that I paid for. My frustrations with microtransactions are not directed in any way towards people who enjoy them.

But I will argue against something I do not want in my games, just as you (or others) can argue for it. That's why I love forums.

Gleipnir3;n10539892 said:
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?

Why should a 99-cent outfit not be made available to the player for free in a post-launch update? Why shouldn't it be added in as part of a more substantial paid DLC down the road?

The only answer that makes sense to me is "greed," and I will not support that. The alternative is they are directing a significant amount of resources from the singleplayer game (GTA V) to fuel some sort of GTA-Online like multiplayer, which I will also not support. I do not buy CDPR games for multiplayer. I buy them for strong singleplayer mechanics. I'm fine with unintrusive, minor multiplayer, but if it starts pulling a lot of resources from the development of SP, CDPR can kiss my business goodbye. Not that it matters, they'll still make a ton of money from the game and my purchase matters very little.

CDPR will 100% make a buttload of money from CP2077's sales alone. I promise you that. Unless the game itself is terrible, it will knock sales out of the park. CDPR is still on the top seller's list for TW3. They do not need microtransactions - if they added them, it's because they want to add them, not because it's an inherent requirement.

Why would someone want to spent 99-cents on an outfit when they could get that outfit for free? If it's about supporting CDPR, buy the game and buy the DLC. Heck, go play Gwent and buy its microtransactions.

Gleipnir3;n10539892 said:
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?

They aren't all bad. They are bad (to me) if I'm already giving a developer $60 for a singleplayer-focused game. I have no problem with cosmetic-only microtransactions in multiplayer games, even if I gave the dev $60. That just means I should get a LOT of content for my $60, and then extras down the line for fair prices. No loot boxes, though - outright purchases only, please, like Heroes of the Storm did before the big loot box update.

If I'm buying a single-player focused RPG (which, 2077 will mostly be by all accounts - though nobody knows for sure, obviously), I should not be nickel and dimed, even if there's an added, optional multiplayer mode. Again, it's CDPR's own fault if they decide to absorb the server costs associated with a multiplayer game by tacking it onto a singleplayer game.

Gleipnir3;n10539892 said:
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.)

I don't know, because I'm not one of those people. Sounds like a dumb argument to me, though.
 
Snowflakez;n10542932 said:
CDPR will 100% make a buttload of money from CP2077's sales alone. I promise you that. Unless the game itself is terrible, it will knock sales out of the park. CDPR is still on the top seller's list for TW3. They do not need microtransactions - if they added them, it's because they want to add them, not because it's an inherent requirement.
Only FTP games "need" microtransactions, for any ... ANY ... game you pay for they're strictly an extra source of profits. The development and marketing costs are covered by the games sales price.
 
Snowflakez;n10542932 said:
No worries, I completely understand, I dont' take offense or anything like that. And I actually really have nothing against people who buy microtransactions, it's none of my business. All I care about is getting the full experience that I paid for. My frustrations with microtransactions are not directed in any way towards people who enjoy them.

But I will argue against something I do not want in my games, just as you (or others) can argue for it. That's why I love forums.



Why should a 99-cent outfit not be made available to the player for free in a post-launch update? Why shouldn't it be added in as part of a more substantial paid DLC down the road?

The only answer that makes sense to me is "greed," and I will not support that. The alternative is they are directing a significant amount of resources from the singleplayer game (GTA V) to fuel some sort of GTA-Online like multiplayer, which I will also not support. I do not buy CDPR games for multiplayer. I buy them for strong singleplayer mechanics. I'm fine with unintrusive, minor multiplayer, but if it starts pulling a lot of resources from the development of SP, CDPR can kiss my business goodbye. Not that it matters, they'll still make a ton of money from the game and my purchase matters very little.

CDPR will 100% make a buttload of money from CP2077's sales alone. I promise you that. Unless the game itself is terrible, it will knock sales out of the park. CDPR is still on the top seller's list for TW3. They do not need microtransactions - if they added them, it's because they want to add them, not because it's an inherent requirement.

Why would someone want to spent 99-cents on an outfit when they could get that outfit for free? If it's about supporting CDPR, buy the game and buy the DLC. Heck, go play Gwent and buy its microtransactions.



They aren't all bad. They are bad (to me) if I'm already giving a developer $60 for a singleplayer-focused game. I have no problem with cosmetic-only microtransactions in multiplayer games, even if I gave the dev $60. That just means I should get a LOT of content for my $60, and then extras down the line for fair prices. No loot boxes, though - outright purchases only, please, like Heroes of the Storm did before the big loot box update.

If I'm buying a single-player focused RPG (which, 2077 will mostly be by all accounts - though nobody knows for sure, obviously), I should not be nickel and dimed, even if there's an added, optional multiplayer mode. Again, it's CDPR's own fault if they decide to absorb the server costs associated with a multiplayer game by tacking it onto a singleplayer game.



I don't know, because I'm not one of those people. Sounds like a dumb argument to me, though.

Thanks for the answers. You do make a valid point that I'll admit I overlooked on a full game buy. For the longest time I always felt the 60$ part was spefically for the SP alone and that MP is just tacked on (IE: Spec Ops: The Line- Great game but a tacked on MP.), and that in order to keep servers running for 5+ years they'd require MTs. But this comes back to where you mentioned GWENT. I didn't know about it having card crates and all that. Huh. So CDPR already has a singular "Money Maker" as they develop CP77. Thus I'll accept your logic on the matter.
 
I am hoping you all see that making cosmetic content post launch is extra work for the devs and should be compensated, right? No one works for free, if the demand is there why shouldnt they start working on future wear to sell ingame? I dont see the problem. It DOES NOT detract from singleplayer. It doesnt change the kick-ass SP experience. What it does it satisfies the vanity of some players who want to be flashy and stylish with their characters in MP hubs.
For me ideal option would be a tool to allow players to make their own skins and sell them through the shop - like in Warframe. Some community cosmetic design are really mind-blowing. I would be eager to see some of the hidden talent to take stage.

TLDR: post launch team making cosmeetic dlcs have to earn right? I dont expect for the devs to work for free on a content you "deem" a part of the $60 content...
 
wisielec;n10550002 said:
I am hoping you all see that making cosmetic content post launch is extra work for the devs and should be compensated, right? No one works for free, if the demand is there why shouldnt they start working on future wear to sell ingame? I dont see the problem. It DOES NOT detract from singleplayer. It doesnt change the kick-ass SP experience. What it does it satisfies the vanity of some players who want to be flashy and stylish with their characters in MP hubs.
For me ideal option would be a tool to allow players to make their own skins and sell them through the shop - like in Warframe. Some community cosmetic design are really mind-blowing. I would be eager to see some of the hidden talent to take stage.

TLDR: post launch team making cosmeetic dlcs have to earn right? I dont expect for the devs to work for free on a content you "deem" a part of the $60 content...

Nobody is saying the devs shouldn't be compensated.

Bottom line: CDPR will make more than enough cash from game sales alone to justify future free content. This is virtually a guarantee. Cyberpunk 2077 has the world's eyes on it, and CDPR exploded in popularity and trust with TW3. CDPR also already has their microtransaction-laden, "game as a service" title Gwent, which they themselves have said is a model they will adopt between major AAA releases to keep funding them. This is one of the ways they keep microtransactions out of bigger releases - and it's a super smart way of doing things. Props to them for that.

They do not need microtransactions. I repeat, they do not need microtransactions. I know this point has been drummed into everybody's heads by major publishers for the past couple years, but it's completely and totally incorrect. Companies like EA have said themselves that the removal of microtransactions have no impact on their game's success.

The only time you need microtransactions is when you A. Are running a F2P game. or B (to a lesser degree). are charging $60 for an exclusively multiplayer-focused title with a long-term, 10/15-year plan. This is because of the inherent costs associated with running servers, ongoing billing departments and customer support when payments don't work or people get banned unfairly, etc.

Even then, they should be strictly cosmetic and it only applies to certain publishers - if CDPR made a Destiny-like game, I could see them adding microtransactions in, and it'd be totally fair, because they don't have the stupid resources that a company like EA does.

As I said earlier, there is no reason CDPR shouldn't give these little cosmetic items you are discussing out for free or as part of expansions.

No disrespect intended, for the record. Happy to chat about this stuff, and I respect your viewpoint as well. I am absolutely onboard with letting players make their own skins and sell them, though. That sounds awesome, and is -- in my opinion -- one of the few correct ways to do microtransactions, if they must be in at all. However, you also don't want to restrict people from making free outfits via mods, so it's a tough balancing act.
 
Last edited:
I see many people in this thread that will be very heart broken when 2077 comes out and has the multiplayer option that CDPR got a grant from their government to make. One tweet talking about a single player mode does NOT undo the many articles where the same dev and other devs had stated that there is going to be online/multiplayer elements. And the aforementioned grant from the Polish Government has the little detail that as part of the deal, that CDPR adds a seamless multiplayer world to Cyberpunk 2077 as they develop it.
And here's a link to an article talking about the grant.
https://wccftech.com/cd-projekt-red-gets-7-million-government/

So there will be some form of multiplayer and I can't wait to see how they handle it.

And it's kind of sad that so many posters think so little of CDPR, that they can't even fathom that CDPR can make both a great single player portion and multiplayer portion. This reminds me of music fans that would attack a band for making a new album that didn't sound like a past album. With 2077, I see CDPR is trying new things out to see what they are capable of and I say more power to them, let them see if they can make something that's not a generic fantasy world but is the world that help start the Cyberpunk genre.

As for the Op's message, NO, 2077 does NOT need a cash shop of any form for anything. Everything should be available in-game, cash shops are the death of any kind of game.
 
Another point to add to the whole Microtransaction/DLC/Lootboxes bull crap..

*sounds like the old man* Back in my day we called it an expansion pack, it normally costed half the price of the full game and added tons of content to the game, with more maps, more gear, more story and more stuff to do.
Yeah I know some companies, albeit very few of them, still do expansion packs but not in the amount of content from packs of days long past.

And with Cyberpunk 2020 as the base for 2077, CDPR has access to a mess of extra content for such packs if they don't include half of it in the base game. And then they have Mike Pondsmith and R. Talsorian, the guy who made 2020 and the company that owns 2020, on speed dial so they can possibly have an endless supply of new content for 2077. And not to mention that some of the CDPR devs have been long time 2020 fans themselves as players and GMs.
 
walkingdarkly;n10554052 said:
I see many people in this thread that will be very heart broken when 2077 comes out and has the multiplayer option that CDPR got a grant from their government to make. One tweet talking about a single player mode does NOT undo the many articles where the same dev and other devs had stated that there is going to be online/multiplayer elements. And the aforementioned grant from the Polish Government has the little detail that as part of the deal, that CDPR adds a seamless multiplayer world to Cyberpunk 2077 as they develop it.
And here's a link to an article talking about the grant.
https://wccftech.com/cd-projekt-red-...on-government/

So there will be some form of multiplayer and I can't wait to see how they handle it.

And it's kind of sad that so many posters think so little of CDPR, that they can't even fathom that CDPR can make both a great single player portion and multiplayer portion. This reminds me of music fans that would attack a band for making a new album that didn't sound like a past album. With 2077, I see CDPR is trying new things out to see what they are capable of and I say more power to them, let them see if they can make something that's not a generic fantasy world but is the world that help start the Cyberpunk genre.

As for the Op's message, NO, 2077 does NOT need a cash shop of any form for anything. Everything should be available in-game, cash shops are the death of any kind of game.

Here's the fact: none of us know what CDPR is going to do. They could have barely anything as far as multiplayer goes, or it could completely dominate the game, as GTA Online does. Nobody knows.

Online/multiplayer elements is literally all anyone has to go off of. That's it. Not "GTA Online," not "Games as a service," not "coop campaign."

Elements could mean anything, and people are reading into it too much one way or the other (myself included, in the past).

I'm personally of the opinion that it will be a singleplayer-focused RPG, because there's still a lot of room for innovation in CDPR's formula. It's not like they've hit a wall with TW3 and now need to expand into a massive multiplayer side of the game just to stay fresh. That, and stuff they've said in the past has led me to believe it will be SP first, MP second (tweets, "story driven" quotes from articles, etc.) But that's still just an opinion. As is everything else people speculate about regarding the existence of SP or MP mechanics.

To summarize my thoughts on the matter - multiplayer development pulls resources from the singleplayer portion of the game. Period. It just does. It's literally impossible for that not to happen, because every single hour a developer spends on one aspect of the game is an hour not spent on another aspect of the game. If multiplayer is going to be some huge aspect of the game, that's a huge portion of resources being dedicated to it.

How many resources that is, that's what I'm willing to adopt a "wait and see" approach for ultimately.

It's not about having faith or not having faith in CDPR. It's about me being a singleplayer fan who is simply tired of the AAA industry's belief that singleplayer gaming is dead. We've argued about this before, but the fact is, the industry is moving away from singleplayer titles. I know you think we have plenty of options. But, us singleplayer fans are a dying breed. Indie games and a few "holdout" publishers are probably going to become our sole source of entertainment in the coming years.

So, whenever I see an opportunity for a fantastic AAA, singleplayer RPG with "no bullshit," I get excited. That's why I argue so much against major multiplayer elements.

I'm fine with even some sort of Dark Souls experience where friends can drop in to do open world/"radiant" content together. Whatever. I'll just ignore it, doesn't bother me. But anything more than that, and you run the risk of diverting too many resources away from what I believe the core of the game to be, and what I believe to be CDPR's true strengths (As they've demonstrated with their last 3 AAA titles).
 
Top Bottom