A reasonable explanation for everything that went wrong?

+
I think the interesting comparison here would be.

|..Fallout 4.............Cyberpunk.......Horizon: Forbidden West..|
Cyberpunk surely walks closer to the line of jankyness which we know from Fallout games (and I find FO4 the best example in use)
Edit: on second thought, no Cyberpunk 2077 is much better and closer to Horizon. I forgot about some real frustrating elements in the FO series like inability to climb/wallgrab or properly crouch underneath openings which would clearly support the character model.Horizon seems to run more smoothly, albeit I also have had the occasional crash there and some moments of controls-issues, but overal Horizon would be the level at which you'd want to be with Cyberpunk gameplay/controls wise.
The graphics thing I have never understood. Partially because I'm less interested in by default but even then... PS2 era graphics... some people really are full of crap there.
Even on PS4, Cyberpunk looks real good. The only thing I could understand is if someone isn't fan of the artstyle Cyberpunk goes for, but that is subjective: you like or you dont. But CP definately does NOT have bad gaphics objectively. Case closed.
The graphics claim is bizarre. I watched a few reviews when the game released to find certain youtube channels who also review PS2, even PS1 & PSP games refer to Cyberpunk's graphics as being alike, and the game "barely functioning". Their source? Having seen footage. I couldn't believe my ears, this one was previously fairly respectable too.

Sony's first-party games like Horizon certainly made most of the system, it's almost unfair to expect cross-platform developers to hit the same level of optimization. Ghost of Tsushima runs wonderfully on base console as well; huge map, lovely graphics and very quick load times.
Thankfully Cyberpunk 1.5 and next-gen version seem to have allowed the game a fairer evaluation.
 
The graphics claim is bizarre. I watched a few reviews when the game released to find certain youtube channels who also review PS2, even PS1 & PSP games refer to Cyberpunk's graphics as being alike, and the game "barely functioning". Their source? Having seen footage. I couldn't believe my ears, this one was previously fairly respectable too.

Sony's first-party games like Horizon certainly made most of the system, it's almost unfair to expect cross-platform developers to hit the same level of optimization. Ghost of Tsushima runs wonderfully on base console as well; huge map, lovely graphics and very quick load times.
Thankfully Cyberpunk 1.5 and next-gen version seem to have allowed the game a fairer evaluation.
Agreed.
And this happens on multiple other topics of discussion as well. If you happen to come across it, pay attention to people who claim they want consequences for their choices in RPG games, but then rant about not being able to do 1 singular run and do EVERYTHING... and the funniest thing is that they dont seem to understand the very concept therefore :)
Had some good lolz with these idiotic claims :giveup:

Expect... well it doesn't mean it can't be done ofcourse, but there will usually be more resources and difficulties involved to do so, and then comes in the question, is that little bit of extra smoothness worth what needs to be invested in getting it. Ultimately its still a balance check with a eurosign.
But those that claim to ony care about how up to snuff your graphics are dont care about that, and therefore go on these rediculous tangeants.
And... as we discussed, what is "less" Again, I think you and I both can say graphics wise CP77 doesn't lack... so what would there be to improve on?
 
No need for thanks, it's a very interesting conversation and very few people are actually able to properly voice and discuss their stance without falling into the pitfalls of one side or another.

This is refreshing is what it is.

It's refreshing indeed :D
While I agree with almost 100% of this, I want to address two very minor point.

First, clarifying my position. I do believe that people who fall squarely into the definition of "fanboyism" (I hate the term but it is what it is and a very accurate depiction of some) are absolutely as detrimental as the "haters" (another term I hate). To the game and the developers. When I say I think one is "better" than the other, I mean that purely from an individual standpoint - for their own good. Being very angry over a video game for such a long time isn't mentally healthy behavior and I can't help but assume it translates into every aspect of their lives too and being angry at everything is just bad for you.

I agree. I just don't know which might be worse. To be angry for great lengths of time or to feel you have to protect an ideal/entity and their ideals for great lengths of time (which might include being untruthful to your beliefs or even losing perspective of what is one's point of view); both wanting to see it reflected in other people's vision.
It's just both might be wrong, one just seems overall more authentic to me. We are in an era where anger is propagandized and promoted, so I know there is manipulation either way; it's just anger, however it may be coming from a staged or promoted scenario is a gut reaction to something. The "racional" defense to an argument made with a goal to preserve an image or ideal can be more perverse in my view because there's a semi-intentional or semi-conscience reasoning going on. It reminds me of that school exercise in rhetoric where a student must defend a point of view they don't agree with; I find this exercise very useful to promote empathy, view a situation from multiple perspectives,... But the point of the exercise in the end is, to me, for the student to learn ways of gathering all sorts of information and different angles so that he can in the end, arrive at better conclusions and more informed view on the subject. It is not to develop this tool to be successful in the systems we live in by talking bulshit convincingly, which seems like the best curriculum for some people on their jobs.

Just to re-iterate, I don't think you fall within that category at all.

I know, really never took it differently or aimed at me.
I understand your position and I, at least, partially agree with it but I have to wonder, would it really reflect on the community? My experiences point to the contrary. I do believe it would reflect on those who have been following CDPR for a long-time but the "newcomers" for lack of a better word.... I don't think it would change anything for them. At least, not in my experience.

I think it would change a lot. A misbehaved student class can change their overall tone dramatically with a different teacher. With a humble and more communicative approach from the beginning I think the overall tone would change a lot. Of course there are always loud haters but I believe the change would be substantial.
What doesn't make sense to me is the argument that whatever CDPR would say they were being roasted in every sentence. To me, again, that problem came from CDPR talking to players before release as semigods of game developing in their promotion of the game (regardless of unfulfilled promises or that kind of talk) to - disaster release - to - disguised apology video - to - almost not talking to players and when talking, still carrying this ubris around - . And talking to investors mostly; I find this very disrespectful and the opposite of promoting healthy discussions. I'm at the same time very grateful for the work they managed to put into the game. But that's why I find the developing side of the company and the management/PR side very different, and am only criticizing the latter.
Before patch 1.5 some great news came out from inside the company that CDPR was allowing developers to work at their own rhythm and making more decisions. Looking at a companie's behavior towards the players is also a way to see the importance the managerial side of it gives to the actual product and the player enjoyment of it versus to investors and the money side of things. These are living relations that over time can shift one way or the other.
Here is where the effects of leadership come into play in my view. A consistent, player focused, humble approach to communication with the users of the product themselves, along with the work to rectify it, would leave everyone without a reason not to see repent. The voices that wouldn't, what do you do?? Nothing in my opinion.
Well, that's another topic entirely. I do agree that at this point, it's probably time to open up communication channels more and see how it goes. Clear the air so to speak. Be a bit pro-active instead of reactive. As you mention below though, none of us has any clue as to the internal happenings at CDPR, and as someone with very intimate knowledge of the inner workings of corporate structures, I find it hard to blame them at this point in time.
That's the perfect scenario - both an apology coupled with actions. Which I'd argue CDPR did. Again, maybe not to everyone's liking (you can't please everyone anyway) but there was an apology and the subsequent actions proved they were serious about it wouldn't you agree? If not, I'm curious, is there a point where CDPR could've done enough for you to accept and move on from their lack of a "proper" apology?
I agree with you that actions are much more valuable than words. That's why an apology is only real if it reflects a change in tone. That's the action I'm missing from the corpo CDPR.

And it's important for companies to hold themselves to a high standard. And it's our role too to ask for it.
 
Right?

That's essentially why I'm asking the questions I'm asking because I can't think of it either.

So far CDPR has apologized. We may disagree on the quality of the apology but it's still an apology. Then proceeded to start fixing their game. Making amends. They still are in fact. Patch 1.6 will bring in more fixes and, I suspect, more QoLs and maybe a bit of content.

Where is the line where what they've done is enough?

Is there a point where it's enough?

I'm very curious about people's answers to that but most people can't discuss that without resorting to plain blind support or hatred.
It's not difficult: if your overhyped game has underdelivered and disappointed playerbase, only way you can turn things around is..overdeliver, post launch.
CDPR management still hasn't figured this out.
This is like a football match, where your team is losing 0-3, you need a victory to pass into next round, there is less than 15 minutes until the end. And CDPR's management is like a coach who tells his team:
"Slooow and steady, boys. No unnecessary risks."
Fallout 76 is still flawed and buggy as hell, but Bethesda has hugely improved it's reception thanks to how much they added to it. If nothing else, they deserve respect for that.
Cyberpunk has 3 critical areas where it disappointed majority of it's audience:
- Technical performance and bugs: they did a good job here. Obviously some things like physics and fundamental changes to AI cannot be drastically improved, but the game is, more or less, in good state post 1.5 patch.
- Roleplaying aspect and mechanics: Almost nothing.
- Open world content, dynamic and interactivity: Very small changes/additions.
So unless 1.6 ( and other patches) and the expansion(s) completely overhaul and enhance rpg and open world systems, Cyberpunk will remain a black stain on CDPR's repuation, even if expansions on their own are good.
 
I don't think you can say it was just a QA problem. Producers are there to look through the bug list and prioritize them.
The situation in the video only works if CDPR had NO producers working on the game, and from the game credits, there were at least 24 producers working full time.


It's a near impossibility that none of the 24 producers were looking at the bugs filed from that team and prioritizing them.
Post automatically merged:

You can see in the credits that CDPR had their own internal QA team, and multiple outsourced QA teams as well.
Outsource Partners: QLOC S.A. - Quality Assurance
Outsource Partners: QLOC S.A. - Stadia Porting & Quality Assurance
Outsource Partners: Quantic Lab

Blaming it entirely on QA here is completely incorrect, the source of the problem is the producers.

Their job is to make sure that the parts of the game they're working on is being made on time, on budget (number of people working on it) and at a player acceptable quality level.

If the project is so big that there's no way to make it in time, it's their job to either change the schedule, change the size of the project, or change the budget and hire more people.

Here's some of the obvious signs their producers were failing:
  1. The game was delayed multiple times (failed on time test)
  2. The game is very buggy (failed acceptable quality level)
  3. Studio was in crunch mode for over a year (failed on time test)
  4. Multiple features shown in the demo were cut from the game (result of failing to deliver on time)
CDPR doesn't have a QA problem, they have a producer problem.
 
Last edited:
On the topic of "fanboys" vs "haters"; I don't think there's an equivalence between both ends of the spectrum. As annoying as it can be when fanboys are toxically positive and utterly averse to any and all criticism, I've never felt threatened by any of them. Whereas on the extreme hater end of the spectrum you have a smörgåsbord of... well, hatred. It's sanitised on this forum (although you can sometimes read between the lines) but it's utterly exposed when you look at the comments sections under CDPR's social media posts.

Take CDPR's official Instagram page for example:

22 May, "Cultural Diversity Week", a post about RED employees celebrating their cultures by eating various foods in their canteen, attending a Motanki workshop, and - god forbid - getting to know each other.
The comments section:
[Mostly negative and too inappropriate to share without violating forum rules; comments often paired with demands to focus on games instead. Only a minority of comments are supportive]

3 June, "Pride / Open World", a post that supports Pride and announces Pride t-shirt merch.
The comments section:
[As above; overwhelmingly negative and too inappropriate to share; often paired with demands to focus on games instead. Only a minority of comments are supportive]

29 June, "The Witcher Official Cookbook", a post promoting a new cookbook based on the Witcher.
The comments section:
[Mostly positive and enthusiastic. Only a couple negative comments demanding focus on games instead of a cookbook.]

So, to sum up: an Instagram post where CDPR celebrated its cultural diversity was met with hate and cynicism and demands to focus on the games instead; another IG post where CDPR shows support for Pride was met with a similar litany of comments; but a post about a cookbook was... fine. The haters were largely silent on that one. Apparently a cookbook is not a threat to game development the way a t-shirt is (hmm, I wonder what the difference is...)

Sadly it's a pattern with many fandoms. Oh and then there's the issue of game devs allegedly receiving death threats - yeah, that's a thing :/ So while fanboys who see no wrong might be annoying, I don't see how that's anything compared to the actual danger posed by the extreme hater end of the fandom.

P.s. on a side note, can we please acknowledge how hilarious it is that there are literally people out there getting themselves angry over the idea of game devs knitting merchandise instead of programming? :ROFLMAO:
 
My game is working perfectly fine with a whopping 320 very intruding mods running in it, which seemingly means any issue you are experiencing undoubtedly has to be on your side. ^^
on my side = cdprs fault, not able to make it run on old gen 2 years after release. - so this comment punched no-one but cdpr. good one, I agree.
 
cdprs fault, not able to make it run on old gen 2 years after release
Played only one month on "old gen" XB1x at release, and it was playable.
Some crashes and bugs, but no more than several games before, and above all, nothing who prevent me to complete the game entirely (no game breaking bug at all).
I can't say on PS4, but in view of some member comments, it was playable too :
A comment I've seen very often and almost looks like certain people will want you to believe if you have a PS4 copy, therefore you'd have a bad experience.
I can tell you: as base-PS4 user.
- Never experienced any game/story-breaking bugs that would unilaterally stop me from continuing the game. Ever. Period
- Post 1.06 (and for me from basically the start): only experienced 1 or 2 game crashes over the course of 300/400 hours of play across 3 characters.
- Post 1.06 and certain post 1.1 I believe: the "worst" glitches I experienced are sudden popins and/or motorcycles falling from the sky. I only once felt through the floor somewhere in Santa Domingo and that was before 1.1

Overall, I have had a very pleasant gaming experience with Cyberpunk 2077 for almost the entirely of playing and on top of that it was a definate joy to walk that universe.

Infact, I've experienced more issues on my PC version where I have somewhere like 80 110 hours.
My first year with Cyberpunk was on base PS4 too. Whilst it can feel janky coming back from playing it on next gen hardware, the assumption that it was an unplayable mess is just false, as are the "PS2 graphics" claims made by youtubers. At worst, before the first two patches it would crash semi-regularly, usually after a couple of hours. After 1.3 I would get two whole crashes in the 100+ hours I took to finish the game.

I still think it's impressive they managed to cram that game into working on old hardware like that.
 
Played only one month on "old gen" XB1x at release, and it was playable.
Some crashes and bugs, but no more than several games before, and above all, nothing who prevent me to complete the game entirely (no game breaking bug at all).
I can't say on PS4, but in view of some member comments, it was playable too :
it is "playable" but still not enjoyable thats a big difference. After 2 years, loading objects still doesn't work, bluescreens return with 1.5X more often than before, dialogs still overlap, some quests are still buggy or won't trigger, people and cars are still floating, clones still appear everywhere, crowd, police and driver ai still suck like they are tested in the 90's, Amadillo bug still sucks, loot still clip in objectives, car music doesn't work at all etc. etc. etc.

And old gen doesn't even get DLC/Patch content which smells like scam - im really curious how the Xpac differs for old and current hardware, im sure old gen will left out for parts of the xpac as well if they didn't even get such a small tiny cosmetic like the Leguan Egg.

If you are used to oversee and accept such a status and call it playable for a praised AAA title thats on you - for me its clearly not acceptable or defendable that they made hella cash with oldgen preorders and sells but now they are left behind in performance and support. scam-alike.
 
Last edited:
it is "playable" but still not enjoyable thats a big difference.
It's subjective, but with a full playthrough (all quests, all GIGs and all NCPD Scanner Hustles, "only" one ending, most of achievements unlocked and more than 120 hours of playing time) between December 10th and December 24th... I can say without any doubt that it was playable and enjoyable for me on my "old gen" XB1x, I can guaratee you ;)
(Anyway, if I don't enjoy playing a game, I don't play it...)
And I believe it was also playable & enjoyable for @Spectral_Warrior and @AlienSpaceBats on their PS4.
And old gen doesn't even get "DLC" content which smells like scam
So you means that on PS4, all these DLCs are not available ?
If you are used to oversee and accept such a status and call it playable for a praised AAA title thats on you
It depends of the game. I rather prefer to buy and play a "good game" (which is subjective) with bugs/issues and spent hundreds of hours on it (let's say like Skyrim, Fallout, ARK, TW3 pr Cyberpunk) than a fully polished game without any bugs/issues that I'll find boring, which means that I won't play it or just few hours... (like Yakuza LAD or more recently Control).
So yeah, we could say that "I'm used to oversee and accept such a status and call it playable" :cool:
 
Last edited:
I agree. I just don't know which might be worse. To be angry for great lengths of time or to feel you have to protect an ideal/entity and their ideals for great lengths of time (which might include being untruthful to your beliefs or even losing perspective of what is one's point of view); both wanting to see it reflected in other people's vision.
It's just both might be wrong, one just seems overall more authentic to me. We are in an era where anger is propagandized and promoted, so I know there is manipulation either way; it's just anger, however it may be coming from a staged or promoted scenario is a gut reaction to something. The "racional" defense to an argument made with a goal to preserve an image or ideal can be more perverse in my view because there's a semi-intentional or semi-conscience reasoning going on. It reminds me of that school exercise in rhetoric where a student must defend a point of view they don't agree with; I find this exercise very useful to promote empathy, view a situation from multiple perspectives,... But the point of the exercise in the end is, to me, for the student to learn ways of gathering all sorts of information and different angles so that he can in the end, arrive at better conclusions and more informed view on the subject. It is not to develop this tool to be successful in the systems we live in by talking bulshit convincingly, which seems like the best curriculum for some people on their jobs.

But is it really more authentic?

I don't disagree with you that people who fall squarely into the definition of "fanboy" often come across as disingenuous. The same thing can be said of the "haters" though.

If you lean more towards one side or the other, that side will most likely feel more genuine to you. To people on the other side, yours feel disingenuous. For people like me who are more in the middle of things and don't really lean one way or the other, both sides feel very manufactured. I feel like both side offer plenty of manufactured "hate" or "love" for the game because of personal opinion instead of objectively looking at the product.

I know, really never took it differently or aimed at me.

Good! Just making sure since the written medium is mostly tone deaf.

I think it would change a lot. A misbehaved student class can change their overall tone dramatically with a different teacher. With a humble and more communicative approach from the beginning I think the overall tone would change a lot. Of course there are always loud haters but I believe the change would be substantial.
What doesn't make sense to me is the argument that whatever CDPR would say they were being roasted in every sentence. To me, again, that problem came from CDPR talking to players before release as semigods of game developing in their promotion of the game (regardless of unfulfilled promises or that kind of talk) to - disaster release - to - disguised apology video - to - almost not talking to players and when talking, still carrying this ubris around - . And talking to investors mostly; I find this very disrespectful and the opposite of promoting healthy discussions. I'm at the same time very grateful for the work they managed to put into the game. But that's why I find the developing side of the company and the management/PR side very different, and am only criticizing the latter.
Before patch 1.5 some great news came out from inside the company that CDPR was allowing developers to work at their own rhythm and making more decisions. Looking at a companie's behavior towards the players is also a way to see the importance the managerial side of it gives to the actual product and the player enjoyment of it versus to investors and the money side of things. These are living relations that over time can shift one way or the other.
Here is where the effects of leadership come into play in my view. A consistent, player focused, humble approach to communication with the users of the product themselves, along with the work to rectify it, would leave everyone without a reason not to see repent. The voices that wouldn't, what do you do?? Nothing in my opinion.

Again, I'm not totally disagreeing or agreeing with you here.

I agree, CDPR isn't communicating enough. On that, I fully agree. I think it's time to test the waters and try reconnecting with their community. I don't think them communicating with their investors and not with us is disrespectful. They communicate with their investors because they have to (duty to, drive investments, etc) not because they want to. No upper management likes making these reports. It's incredibly stressful and can go wrong at a moment's notice.

I do have to ask, what do you mean by "humble" approach to communications? They messed up, they know that. Regardless of how genuine we think the apology was, they know they messed up. Are they to apologize profusely for the next decade before it's ok?

I want them to open up communication channels but only for better update on how things are moving along. It's a company, they're not my friends and I don't want them to act as if they were and they want to "mend" our relationship. I get the feeling what you want is different, if so, can you elaborate?

I agree with you that actions are much more valuable than words. That's why an apology is only real if it reflects a change in tone. That's the action I'm missing from the corpo CDPR.

If you agree that actions are much more valuable than words then wouldn't the fact the game is in way better shape than it was 17 months ago be proof of a certain degree of humbleness and plenty of willingness to listen to players?

I'm getting the impression you want CDPR to apologize on a somewhat "personal" level to players. Like a friend would apologize to another friend they've wronged. I may be wrong and correct me if I am.

And it's important for companies to hold themselves to a high standard. And it's our role too to ask for it.

This is true but it's also important to remember that our role is to do so the right way. Being extremely angry at them, like some, for over a year is definitely not the best way to hold them to higher standards. It's ok to criticize but it's also important to calm down and look at things in an objective way. What's actual feasible and what people want can be two entirely different things. If things don't work out the way you want, the best way to let them know is with your wallet.

It's not difficult: if your overhyped game has underdelivered and disappointed playerbase, only way you can turn things around is..overdeliver, post launch.
CDPR management still hasn't figured this out.
This is like a football match, where your team is losing 0-3, you need a victory to pass into next round, there is less than 15 minutes until the end. And CDPR's management is like a coach who tells his team:
"Slooow and steady, boys. No unnecessary risks."
Fallout 76 is still flawed and buggy as hell, but Bethesda has hugely improved it's reception thanks to how much they added to it. If nothing else, they deserve respect for that.
Cyberpunk has 3 critical areas where it disappointed majority of it's audience:
- Technical performance and bugs: they did a good job here. Obviously some things like physics and fundamental changes to AI cannot be drastically improved, but the game is, more or less, in good state post 1.5 patch.
- Roleplaying aspect and mechanics: Almost nothing.
- Open world content, dynamic and interactivity: Very small changes/additions.
So unless 1.6 ( and other patches) and the expansion(s) completely overhaul and enhance rpg and open world systems, Cyberpunk will remain a black stain on CDPR's repuation, even if expansions on their own are good.

I don't get the impression you actually want to discuss things but let's try this.

I don't disagree the game was overhyped but there is a strong player driven component to hype, I'm sure we can agree on that. How do you overdeliver on a product when it's users have overhyped it so much? How do you overdeliver on a game when a lot of people who got overhyped thought it would be something different? Do you expect CDPR to re-write the game to overdeliver on the highest expectation players had regardless of whether the game was ever meant to be the product they thought it would be?

Don't you think we also have a duty, as users, to know the product we are buying?

One last thing, where are you getting your statistics to claim CDPR disappointed a "majority" of it's audience? From where I'm standing, the majority on PC likes the game and so does the majority of PS5/Xbox series S/X(?). I'm not basing this off nothing either, I'm actually talking about scores on Metacritic, Steam, GoG, etc. A majority of last-gen users seem to have been disappointed but most of these scores have not been updated to reflect the current state of the game - the vast majority on metacritic are from December 2020 - Feb 2021 on both PS4 and Xbox one. Furthermore, most of the negative posts are about the bugs/performance which has improved drastically across the board.

So I ask again, where are you getting this majority?
 
Last edited:
A majority of last-gen users seem to have been disappointed but most of these scores have not been updated to reflect the current state of the game - the vast majority on metacritic are from December 2020 - Feb 2021 on both PS4 and Xbox one. Furthermore, most of the negative posts are about the bugs/performance which has improved drastically across the board.

So I ask again, where are you getting this majority?

while I agree with you that performance/bugs has been improved - sadly just to the bare minimum and not to a "wow this is cool" extant : / they may try hard, but it won't ever be the game others experience on new/current gen or high performance pcs. and it will never be. just one post above yours - I listed the problems old gen still has after 2 years and most of them won't be solvable for cdpr no matter how hard they try.
 
I truly enjoyed CP77 put 600 hours in

The game could of been great but never will be

So much in the world feels empty and the expansion would have to be utterly massive to fill the void. With it set in Pacifica I cannot see much being added to fill the emptiness that exists after every quest being done. Considering they removed events that at least gave you something to do after you completed everything

I miss you little blue stars
On the Xbox page it says it's an open world action adventure RPG.

Until it becomes an empty world walking/driving sim
 
while I agree with you that performance/bugs has been improved - sadly just to the bare minimum and not to a "wow this is cool" extant : / they may try hard, but it won't ever be the game others experience on new/current gen or high performance pcs. and it will never be. just one post above yours - I listed the problems old gen still has after 2 years and most of them won't be solvable for cdpr no matter how hard they try.

To be clear, I am not dismissing the issues you are having. At all.

But, it's your experience. A friend of mine bought it on PS4, had the worse performance ever. It was absolutely horrendous. Textures failing to load, problems loading traffic/pedestrians, constant crashes, you name it he had it happen to him repeatedly. He shelved the game expecting to never pick it back up until he bought a PS5.

These days he's playing on his base PS4 and, while he still has a few crashes here and there, it's very much playable and enjoyable. It'll never be comparable to my gaming PC I had at the time of CP2077's release but it's a 7 years (at the time of release) old piece of hardware. It's pushed to it's limits and sounds like a dying bull whenever he plays CP2077 but it works well enough for him to enjoy it.

I disagree with anyone dismissing anyone's experience/opinion backhandedly because it doesn't reflect their own. It does seem like performance varies greatly but overall I've gotten the sense that things had improved substantially on last-gen.
 
I truly enjoyed CP77 put 600 hours in

The game could of been great but never will be

So much in the world feels empty and the expansion would have to be utterly massive to fill the void. With it set in Pacifica I cannot see much being added to fill the emptiness that exists after every quest being done. Considering they removed events that at least gave you something to do after you completed everything

I miss you little blue stars
On the Xbox page it says it's an open world action adventure RPG.

Until it becomes an empty world walking/driving sim

this counts for me as well (12 chars, 3k+ hrs played on old gen) - could be great, but sadly isn't. That's frustrating. Even more if clear issues tend to be claimed "okay-ish" as long as they are not "gamebreaking". - Plain Cyberpunk without mods isn't great or "the next big thing" and never will be as long as the ai acts like it acts for now in an empty world with no interaction or agenda at all after clearing the map once.
 
I truly enjoyed CP77 put 600 hours in

The game could of been great but never will be

So much in the world feels empty and the expansion would have to be utterly massive to fill the void. With it set in Pacifica I cannot see much being added to fill the emptiness that exists after every quest being done. Considering they removed events that at least gave you something to do after you completed everything

I miss you little blue stars
On the Xbox page it says it's an open world action adventure RPG.

Until it becomes an empty world walking/driving sim

I have to say, this is probably the most positive thing I've seen you write on the forum. Maybe this conversation isn't doomed to fail after all.

this counts for me as well (12 chars, 3k+ hrs played on old gen) - could be great, but sadly isn't. That's frustrating. Even more if clear issues tend to be claimed "okay-ish" as long as they are not "gamebreaking". - Plain Cyberpunk without mods isn't great or "the next big thing" and never will be as long as the ai acts like it acts for now in an empty world with no interaction or agenda at all after clearing the map once.

You both have more hours in the game than I do. I'm sitting at 310 hours until 1.6 drops. I've cleared the map and finished the story. I thoroughly enjoyed most of my time with the game. Then the game ended and, while I was disappointed it ended, I thought I had gotten more than my money's worth.

I see a lot of negativity from the both of you on the forum. You obviously spent plenty of time with the game. You definitely got your money's worth out of it.

Is all the negativity coming from what you consider to be failure to reach it's full potential?

Also, @Netrunner2go, I do have trouble understanding how you can say the game isn't enjoyable and almost scam-like (in your own words) but spent 3,000 hours in-game. Surely you enjoyed it, no? Why would you put yourself through 3K of grueling, not enjoyable, almost scam-like hours?
 
on my side = cdprs fault, not able to make it run on old gen 2 years after release. - so this comment punched no-one but cdpr. good one, I agree.
it is "playable" but still not enjoyable thats a big difference. After 2 years, loading objects still doesn't work, bluescreens return with 1.5X more often than before, dialogs still overlap, some quests are still buggy or won't trigger, people and cars are still floating, clones still appear everywhere, crowd, police and driver ai still suck like they are tested in the 90's, Amadillo bug still sucks, loot still clip in objectives, car music doesn't work at all etc. etc. etc.

And old gen doesn't even get DLC/Patch content which smells like scam
By all this, I've come to understand that you play Cyberpunk 2077 on the PlayStation 4, while having had numerous opportunities to have your €$ for the game refunded, in both cases eventually having purchased the game before or after Sony's warning to NOT buy the game on the PlayStation 4 because of reasons.

Gonna just give you one friendly advise: Buy a PlayStation 5.


PS5 vs PS4: Full Tech Specs Comparison

Below is a full tech specs comparison for PS5 against PS4, which includes both PS4 and PS4 Pro.

ComponentPS5PS4 ProPS4
CPU8x Zen 2 Cores at 3.5GHz (Variable Frequency)2.1GHz 8-Core AMD Jaguar1.6GHz 8-Core AMD Jaguar
GPU10.28 TFLOPs, 36 CUs at 2.23GHz (Variable Frequency)4.2 TFLOPs, 36 CUs at 911MHz1.84 TFLOPs, 18 CUs at 800MHz
GPU ArchitectureCustom RDNA 2AMD RadeonAMD Radeon
Memory16GB GDDR6/256-bit8GB GDDR5 plus 1GB DDR38GB GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth448GB/s217GB/s176GB/s
Internal StorageCustom 825GB SSD1TB HDD500GB HDD
I/O Throuput5.5GB/s (Raw), Typical 8-9GB/s (Compressed)~50-100MB/s~50-100MB/s
Expandable StorageNVMe SSD SlotInternal HDD SlotInternal HDD Slot
External StorageUSB HDD SupportUSB HDD SupportUSB HDD Support
Optical Drive4K UHD Blu-ray DriveBlu-ray DriveBlu-ray Drive

PS5 vs PS4: Which Is More Powerful?

There will be no surprises here, but PS5 is vastly more powerful than both PS4 Pro and PS4. Not only does Sony's next-gen system have superior CPUs and GPUs, but its SSD is also significantly faster. For more information on the SSD, refer to the following: PS5 SSD: Why Its Better Than HDD. The only real downside is that, at an unorthodox 825GB, the PS5 has less storage space than PS4 Pro. Other than that, the PS5 smokes its predecessor in every category.
 
I think the point is more that they just shouldn't have released it on previous gen consoles more so than people should be upgrading in order to play the game.

If the game doesn't function or can't even accept certain patches/updates/features on previous gen consoles then don't release your game on the previous generation.
 
If the game doesn't function or can't even accept certain patches/updates/features on previous gen consoles then don't release your game on the previous generation.
As far as I remember, it was released as PS4/XB1 game on consoles :)
(there is RTX feature in the game, so they should have skip all the non RTX GPU ?)
Anyway, I'm happy they did it, because if not, I couldn't have played it before until february 2022... Even if I was lucky enough to get my hand on a Series X on January 2021. What a shame :D
 
Top Bottom