A reasonable explanation for everything that went wrong?

+
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.
I remember my friend (who recommended CP2077 to me in the first as a type of game I would like - correctly) was FURIOUS with them even before release for attempting it on the old-gen consoles. His prediction - it might be possible but would drag down the development for everything else. Well...
 
Pretty sure reception would've been a lot worse if they hadn't. Last-gen players still remain a vast part of the player base that devs simply cannot just ignore.

I know this is a crazy concept...

But then maybe develop the game with that in mind?
 
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.
Perhaps I'm understanding this wrong, but this here seems quite odd.
You spend 3k hours in a game which you say isn't enjoyable (without extensive modding) Not sure how many hours are on PC, but spending 3k hours on a game that you clearly say you dont like a great deal... okay weird.

And then the other claim. Basically you're saying that after you've completed the game (finish story and cleared map) the game is not enjoyable. I would want to argue that, when the game is completed aka done with.. logically its therefore over. only recourse is to begin anew. so this claim seems nonsensical at best. I'm almost inclined to think you want different things from this game which it simply isn't. And maybe never was meant to be. To me, this all sounds like you want radient busywork so you can roam the map just in order to roam the map. Thats a live service type of activity for the most part. I can wholly imagine this game was never meant to have such a thing. And that is perfectly fine, not everything needs to keep on going just to not be 'complete'.
The only valid complaint (if one has frustatrations about it) is the AI thing.
Post automatically merged:

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.
Bethesda can get a credit for giving us eventually a Fallout game that actually is somewhat of a fallout game 1,5 years after the fact sure. Wastelanders was probably the only thing though that was a step in that direction. (coming from zero mind)
All the other fluff was just ways to make it seem like something was added and use that as a distraction. Nuclear winter or that other timely event was just that, nonthing more than a distraction from all the problems, and wether or not those were enjoyable or good events remains debated. And lets not forget about all the other cockery they "invented" like that season pass and atomic shop which is more expensive than a Gucci's. All thing that came BEFORE a sliver of gameplay that fallout players were actually looking to have in the first place.
Wastelanders as I understand is was an olive branch. Adding something to the game that should have been there from the start because NOBODY asked for the live service void of a game that it was. And it was a void indeed. Its also comparatively easier to add something when there's nothing.
Cyberpunk 2077 is another bucket in my book.
Also, those 3 elements you state.
- Bugs, indeed, the biggest issue for the game thruthfully. and they done something good there.
- Roleplay, well first off: subjective. You can roleplay a character just fine. The only critical aspect could be is wether or not its explicit and widely acros the spectrum enough for what you had hoped it would be (which is subjective mind).
- Open World content, you looking to have GTA levels of interaction? and why? I agree somewhat to this point though because there are some things which could have been nice to have, but then I would ask you: what do you believe is still missing and why do you feel like CP77 should have this anyway? Again I find myself in a spot where I see claims like this and wonder: just because another game has something of that nature, why must this one? And would it even make sense or does it really add anything?
Considering that you're asking for a "complete overhaul" I'm not even sure what you ARE desiring that this game should have, but I would hazard a guess and think your desires are just too out of sinc with the intend of this game. Overhaul sounds like you want everything done differently, at which pount I wonder...
Post automatically merged:

I remember my friend (who recommended CP2077 to me in the first as a type of game I would like - correctly) was FURIOUS with them even before release for attempting it on the old-gen consoles. His prediction - it might be possible but would drag down the development for everything else. Well...
And I would reckon that if they had taken another 2 years, nobody would have cared really. A -for all intends and purpose- working game including PS5 upgr and everything would have shipped in one go. And thén it could have been a far more plausible argument that last-gen was no longer supported seeing as how long next-gens would have been out for by then. As it stands now, there was a 1 month diference between a next-gen (PS5) was 'out' and when CP shipped. It was never gonna happen to have a for-nextgen-made-game at that point.
To me it's just a sign that the world today tends to want things fast rather than done well.
As I understood it (and correct me if I'm wrong) CDPR did this the in the wrong order by trying to make a PC-worthy game and then try and cram that into an inferior machine comparatively. Its like wanting to upgrade a Super Nintendo with today's OS.
 
Last edited:
I know this is a crazy concept...

But then maybe develop the game with that in mind?

Seems it's not so simple. Also according to this...

"Some Resident Evil Fans Are Complaining About the Sudden Updates on RE 2, 3 and 7

Fans were not ready for the surprise upgrade.
BY CHRISTIAN PEPITOON JUNE 14, 2022

A number of Resident Evil fans are now complaining about the sudden update of Resident Evil 2 Remake, Resident Evil 3 Remake, and Resident Evil 7 Biohazard titles.

Last night during the CAPCOM Showcase, a surprise announcement was revealed. It seems a new update was released that night for three titles. It upgraded RE2, RE3, and RE7 offering new visuals and made it available on next gen consoles PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. This could have made a lot of fans happy, but it unfortunately had some problems tagging along with it.

According to media outlet PCGamesN, some fans have reported that while the visuals have looked quite better, it also made PC requirements very steep as well.

It even made the games on Steam not compatible on anything older than Windows 10, which was bad for fans who loved to play the game on old school PC builds. The upgrade also caused problems for some mods including a VR mod. The worst part of this is it disabled their ability to roll back to a previous update, which made it possible to play the game again.

The update was so sudden that PC fans were not ready for it and got upgraded instantly. It did not even give them a choice to play the game on lower specs, which could have made it available for them. The new update offered ray-tracing features for improved lighting and reflection.


Hopefully, a new update could rectify this problem and would let players who have old PC systems play the games again."

(For your info, the release date of the games).


(Resident Evil 2 Remake, January 25 2019, Platforms, PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S, Windows, Amazon Luna
Resident Evil 3 Remake, April 3 2020, Platforms, PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S, Windows, Amazon Luna
Resident Evil 7, January 23 2017, Platforms, PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S, Windows, Amazon Luna, Nintendo Switch, stadia)


This update came straight out of the mega blue and made all my mods instantly completely incompatible. Most of them were long since abandoned, so those would never eventually be updated. Was just dumbfounded what Capcom had done.

This was so for the whole day.

The next day, Capcom did something that it had never done before. They made the previous version of all the games available for download on Steam. This mishap made me think about CDPR that they are by no means the only ones taking missteps incorporating Next-Gen into their games.

The PS4 plain simply cannot handle Next-Gen. That poster said it didn't even receive any content of Cyberpunk's DLC, so apparently, it cannot handle that either. Seemingly only the base game. That's why I advised to get a PS5 where he can play the game in Next-Gen, with all the DLC and expansion(s) that the game is going to get.
 
The PS4 plain simply cannot handle Next-Gen. That poster said it didn't even receive any content of Cyberpunk's DLC, so apparently, it cannot handle that either. Seemingly only the base game. That's why I advised to get a PS5 where he can play the game in Next-Gen, with all the DLC and expansion(s) that the game is going to get.
Not entirely true. Last-Gens still did get dlc and improvements, just not the full pack which became available with 1.5
I also remember something about hidden away secrets which was part of this update which last-gen could not receive., but I'm not sure what that is a part of in below chart
1659521022021.png
 
Not entirely true. Last-Gens still did get dlc and improvements, just not the full pack which became available with 1.5
"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."

He said it, not me.
 
Not entirely true. Last-Gens still did get dlc and improvements, just not the full pack which became available with 1.5
I also remember something about hidden away secrets which was part of this update which last-gen could not receive., but I'm not sure what that is a part of in below chart
He said it, not me.
The Iguana, the new katana and knife animations (the first time you hold them) and the new civilians behavior (improved crowd reaction) are not available on old gen, I think that's all.
But current DLCs and "futur" DLCs/expansion will be available on "old-gen", no doubt :)
 
Last edited:
I had completely missed your reply somehow :(
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 agree with this on an overall or general level of analisys and it might indeed be my perception, that is extended by a criticism I have, not only on how people debate this subject, but on the way I feel a lot of conversations have shifted in recent years on western countries.
As examples the aforementioned way people stopped using terms like "conflict of interests" when putting their trust on official statements by companies that have all the interest in stating not the full truth, as opposed to searching for independent voices; on matters such as racism, for example, where virtue signalers that don't belong to a minority come to say what must be done, instead of asking people from that minority instead. Many times these interventions aren't desired by the people in those minorities/ethnicities at all. I associate these with trying to defend/speak for CDPR trying to defend every aspect of the game as is when Pawel Sazco himself has stated many times that they (developers) are aware some parts of the game are lacking. It stops a free flowing of ideas and feedbacks they can use here or on future installments.
I don't use other mediums (Twitter, reddit,...) to comment on this game, or at all, but that doesn't matter, so I don't know or care about the negativity/positivity ratio outside of here.
What I see in this forum that upsets me (generally speaking of course) is more "positive" people ending arguments or conversations than the "negative" ones. Or rather, if someone is saying they love the sound design of the game, for example, and someone else comes to say, "but they promised us third person", it's so out of context that it is easy to ignore and just continue talking about sound design. But I see much more often here someone commenting "the game is missing interactivity with the city in this, this and that" and a "mob" coming to try and micromanage a defense of the game as a static object that is perfect as it is.
To me this stems from this same place I mentioned about trying to speak for others. Also because a lot of these examples (what people wish was in the game but isn't), if implemented would be optional.
Example: I have no interest on new game plus or third person view, so when someone is making a case for why they would like this I just don't go into that conversation, I leave it for the interested parties. But a lot of people just go in and MUST debunk it.
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?



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.

Ok, so you talked about all the elements that come into what I'm missing, which IS NOT a personal, friend-like constant apology. XD
For you, now is the time for CDPR to open up communications. For me it would have been straight away OR, if there were things they shouldn't have said when the lawsuits were still pending closure, immediately after their verdict. The humbleness would be in taking further backlash if it happened, until people realise there is just a wish to make things right for the player base in the actions they were taking to make the game better as they have.
The only thing I liked about the apology video was what he said about "blame us, not the developers". The problem is that outside of that moment the board at CDPR only talked to players in this marketing, everything is wonderful way and it's people like Pawel or the other developers during the 1.5 release stream that talk to the player base portraying not only the good stuff but also the downsides of things. No wonder the audience gets the perception the problems come from the developers, and that's them that take death threats.
That's the gist of it but just as an extra thought, they do have to talk to investors but they know these are public and that the player base will come and get info there but still, no effort is made to acknowledge they are publicly talking to those investors with their backs to players. This is a metaphor of course for if it happened presentialy with everyone on the same space, and it is very rude in my view.
Post automatically merged:

The Iguana, the new katana and knife animations (the first time you hold them) and the new civilians behavior (improved crowd reaction) are not available on old gen, I think that's all.
But current DLCs and "futur" DLCs/expansion will be available on "old-gen", no doubt :)
The iguana also doesn't happen on old Gen? I've been carrying the egg thinking it must go on the new corpo apartment after looking at every inch of the other ones. That's disappointing, come on CDPR, only the aggro npcs have technical limitations on old gen
 
Last edited:
The iguana also doesn't happen on old Gen? I've been carrying the egg thinking it must go on the new corpo apartment after looking at every inch of the other ones. That's disappointing, come on CDPR, only the aggro npcs have technical limitations on old gen
Never tried (I'm on Series X), but apparently, the iguana egg never hatch on old gen (or the bowl don't spawn in the appartement, not sure). Don't ask me why "old-gen" wouldn't be able to handle it, because for me, it's like Nibbles > nothing "very" demanding (the same for the new animations, played once, only the first time you hold a weapon)

In my opinion, only the new crowd behaviour seem to be really "too heavy" for old gen, knowing it could concern a fair amount of NPCs at the same time. So probably performances (which already seem difficult to maintain at a decent level) would take a serious hit in case you create real mess^^
 
O maior problema foi não ter uma ideia clara sobre o que apresentar.

As pessoas envolvidas na construção do mundo estavam no caminho certo, mas a equipe por trás da missão principal não estava. Muitos cortes, histórias que não fazem uso adequado da verticalidade da cidade, introdução tardia de Keanu como Silverhand e corte da história.
Tornou-se um mashup de ideias em vez de um esforço coletivo como Witcher 3.

Witcher 3 tinha uma equipe menor, mas todos tinham uma ideia do produto/experiência final que queriam fornecer.
this
 
I had completely missed your reply somehow :(

And here I thought this conversation had died off. Glad to see that's not the case.

I agree with this on an overall or general level of analisys and it might indeed be my perception, that is extended by a criticism I have, not only on how people debate this subject, but on the way I feel a lot of conversations have shifted in recent years on western countries.
As examples the aforementioned way people stopped using terms like "conflict of interests" when putting their trust on official statements by companies that have all the interest in stating not the full truth, as opposed to searching for independent voices; on matters such as racism, for example, where virtue signalers that don't belong to a minority come to say what must be done, instead of asking people from that minority instead. Many times these interventions aren't desired by the people in those minorities/ethnicities at all. I associate these with trying to defend/speak for CDPR trying to defend every aspect of the game as is when Pawel Sazco himself has stated many times that they (developers) are aware some parts of the game are lacking. It stops a free flowing of ideas and feedbacks they can use here or on future installments.
I don't use other mediums (Twitter, reddit,...) to comment on this game, or at all, but that doesn't matter, so I don't know or care about the negativity/positivity ratio outside of here.
What I see in this forum that upsets me (generally speaking of course) is more "positive" people ending arguments or conversations than the "negative" ones. Or rather, if someone is saying they love the sound design of the game, for example, and someone else comes to say, "but they promised us third person", it's so out of context that it is easy to ignore and just continue talking about sound design. But I see much more often here someone commenting "the game is missing interactivity with the city in this, this and that" and a "mob" coming to try and micromanage a defense of the game as a static object that is perfect as it is.
To me this stems from this same place I mentioned about trying to speak for others. Also because a lot of these examples (what people wish was in the game but isn't), if implemented would be optional.
Example: I have no interest on new game plus or third person view, so when someone is making a case for why they would like this I just don't go into that conversation, I leave it for the interested parties. But a lot of people just go in and MUST debunk it.

Again, I find myself unable to disagree completely. There are certainly people around here who have made it their life's mission to shut down any criticism of the game. I'm also somewhat inclined to agree that it happens more from those trying to protect the game than those trying to "bring it down". I'd argue that it's by a very small margin though.

I say a small margin because I wonder if you've considered the possibility that some of those threads are "shut down" by that "mob" because the threads are founded on nothing but personal perception stemming from a misunderstanding, or even complete ignorance, of what is product development and even more specifically game development?

Wouldn't you agree that the best way to address this is to "shut it down" (don't really like the term I have to say) with cold hard facts?

I also don't think it stems from some virtue signaling. At least, not for most. I think it stems mostly from people getting emotionally invested in a product they like and the typical human behavior of being unable to consider, respect and accept other people's opinion as possibly valid and worth discussing. It gets exponentially worse over the internet. This phenomenon has existed forever but has gotten worse in the last decade.

There is a much deeper (and more interesting) conversation about how our society is absolutely broken but it requires discussing things we aren't allowed to here.

Ok, so you talked about all the elements that come into what I'm missing, which IS NOT a personal, friend-like constant apology. XD
For you, now is the time for CDPR to open up communications. For me it would have been straight away OR, if there were things they shouldn't have said when the lawsuits were still pending closure, immediately after their verdict. The humbleness would be in taking further backlash if it happened, until people realise there is just a wish to make things right for the player base in the actions they were taking to make the game better as they have.
The only thing I liked about the apology video was what he said about "blame us, not the developers". The problem is that outside of that moment the board at CDPR only talked to players in this marketing, everything is wonderful way and it's people like Pawel or the other developers during the 1.5 release stream that talk to the player base portraying not only the good stuff but also the downsides of things. No wonder the audience gets the perception the problems come from the developers, and that's them that take death threats.

There is a time when a product launch fails where there isn't any point in trying to discuss things. Really. In the weeks and possibly months, depending on how angry people are, there just really isn't any point. Coming out and trying to talk things through will only exacerbate things. Just like in a typical relationship, sometimes the other person is just too angry to discuss things and requires a cooling off period. Expand this to millions of people. All with varying degree of self-control, varying degrees of anger and much more.

Gamers aren't exactly known as a particularly friendly bunch either when things don't go well. We're quite infamous for it, in fact. I have no doubt that trying to come out right away and discuss things in the early days would've been completely useless and most likely have made things worse. That's just my opinion though. We'll never know.

It's also important to note that there is certainly plenty of things they couldn't say even if the lawsuits are over because new ones can be filed in an instant. Better to let things cool down completely before saying anything.

You also say that CDPR only talking in "this marketing, everything is wonderful way" and that it's Pawel and the other developers that talk to us about the good as well as the bad but you have to realize, everything Pawel says is carefully curated. For the most part anyway. What he's allowed to say or not is very controlled. CDPR chose to allow him to speak about the good as well as the bad. He didn't choose to do this on his own and the same applies to every other developers. Allowing Pawel, as well as other developers, to do this is part of their way of reconnecting with the community.

I get the feeling you want something from management itself? Like another apology maybe?

I personally would love more communication but not about the past. I genuinely don't care about what happened anymore. I want to know what's coming.

That's the gist of it but just as an extra thought, they do have to talk to investors but they know these are public and that the player base will come and get info there but still, no effort is made to acknowledge they are publicly talking to those investors with their backs to players. This is a metaphor of course for if it happened presentialy with everyone on the same space, and it is very rude in my view.

I get where you're coming from but as I said, CDPR is allowing Pawel to discuss things. This is their way of turning towards us (to use your metaphor) and talking to us directly. It may not be satisfying for you, and I think it's clear it's not for me either, but I wouldn't call it rude. At least there is SOME effort. A lot of companies wouldn't even bother with that.
 
Never tried (I'm on Series X), but apparently, the iguana egg never hatch on old gen (or the bowl don't spawn in the appartement, not sure).
I'll be honest. When first reading this laughed my ass off. Can have the egg but can't hatch it. It's like getting a new vehicle but can't be driven on Last-Gen. As it was introduced with 1.5, think it's just bugged. Last-Genners should just report it to Support.
 
I'll be honest. When first reading this laughed my ass off. Can have the egg but can't hatch it. It's like getting a new vehicle but can't be driven on Last-Gen. As it was introduced with 1.5, think it's just bugged. Last-Genners should just report it to Support.
Think it was confirmed that it wasent a bug but by design. It tracks time ingame since it takes 100 days too hatch so theres some stress on the hardware. Its not mentioned in the patch notes since its a "hidden" thing or something like that. Seems the oldgen is at the peak of what it can run with Cp2077...
 
I'll be honest. When first reading this laughed my ass off. Can have the egg but can't hatch it. It's like getting a new vehicle but can't be driven on Last-Gen. As it was introduced with 1.5, think it's just bugged. Last-Genners should just report it to Support.
Can confirm, for some reason this feature is currently disabled for last gen, same with the new weapon inspect animations. No good reason why these shouldn't be included, given that the resources for them already exist and are used in game. I did get on support about it too.

I'm glad I was able to make the jump to current gen, very concerning for those stuck in last-gen regarding future updates.
 
Again, I find myself unable to disagree completely. There are certainly people around here who have made it their life's mission to shut down any criticism of the game. I'm also somewhat inclined to agree that it happens more from those trying to protect the game than those trying to "bring it down". I'd argue that it's by a very small margin though.

I say a small margin because I wonder if you've considered the possibility that some of those threads are "shut down" by that "mob" because the threads are founded on nothing but personal perception stemming from a misunderstanding, or even complete ignorance, of what is product development and even more specifically game development?

Wouldn't you agree that the best way to address this is to "shut it down" (don't really like the term I have to say) with cold hard facts?
That concept of "shut it down"; exceptionally maybe, preferably done by a moderator if it's done infringing forum rules. I try to be very careful myself about assumptions that my view is 100% correct or well informed. I guess I'd like to see this more often in others. There is a fine line towards authoritarism otherwise, backed up by group approval. Again these are general stances not encompassing extreme claims. And I'm not saying don't put your opposing views forward, not at all, it's as you say: how you defend your position.
But this part of the conversation is established in my view, it's not worth it or possible to say for sure what percentage of cases are negative criticism ending argumentation "in a bad way" as opposed to a defensive stance.
I also don't think it stems from some virtue signaling.
No, the virtue signaling I mentioned applies better to the racism example, I was just trying to make that example clearer. It doesn't apply so much to feedback here. What is common on both examples is the type of argumentation that has developed in recent years and is now normalized, even if it doesn't come from that same place. The idea of empathy as projecting your set of values when taking the stance for someone/something else and thus being self assured when assuming to represent them/it. True empathy is being open to the possibility that another set of values might be just as justified as yours.
There is a much deeper (and more interesting) conversation about how our society is absolutely broken but it requires discussing things we aren't allowed to here.
Boy, ain't that true!!!
There is a time when a product launch fails where there isn't any point in trying to discuss things. Really. In the weeks and possibly months, depending on how angry people are, there just really isn't any point. Coming out and trying to talk things through will only exacerbate things. Just like in a typical relationship, sometimes the other person is just too angry to discuss things and requires a cooling off period. Expand this to millions of people. All with varying degree of self-control, varying degrees of anger and much more.

Gamers aren't exactly known as a particularly friendly bunch either when things don't go well. We're quite infamous for it, in fact. I have no doubt that trying to come out right away and discuss things in the early days would've been completely useless and most likely have made things worse. That's just my opinion though. We'll never know.

It's also important to note that there is certainly plenty of things they couldn't say even if the lawsuits are over because new ones can be filed in an instant. Better to let things cool down completely before saying anything.

You also say that CDPR only talking in "this marketing, everything is wonderful way" and that it's Pawel and the other developers that talk to us about the good as well as the bad but you have to realize, everything Pawel says is carefully curated. For the most part anyway. What he's allowed to say or not is very controlled. CDPR chose to allow him to speak about the good as well as the bad. He didn't choose to do this on his own and the same applies to every other developers. Allowing Pawel, as well as other developers, to do this is part of their way of reconnecting with the community.

I get the feeling you want something from management itself? Like another apology maybe?

I personally would love more communication but not about the past. I genuinely don't care about what happened anymore. I want to know what's coming.



I get where you're coming from but as I said, CDPR is allowing Pawel to discuss things. This is their way of turning towards us (to use your metaphor) and talking to us directly. It may not be satisfying for you, and I think it's clear it's not for me either, but I wouldn't call it rude. At least there is SOME effort. A lot of companies wouldn't even bother with that.
Ok I really messed up in making my point clear here. I'm not talking about CDPR constantly pointing out their mistakes or even focusing on the past. I'm talking about them being honest from early on about what they weren't able to do and why (because they started with PC goals and then tried to adapt to consoles, including old Gen; because many ideas and how these were managed with a now much bigger team; because of investor demands on release dates; whatever it might be). But all of this with the goal of being clear about what is possible to do going forward. Being a lot more clear about the fact that there was much to do on the base programming to make the game stable and so, eliminate people's expectation about the first patches and the first years being anything other than performance and bug fixing. All the speculations about patch release dates and what they will do is CDPR's fault in my opinion.
And this would trigger backlash no doubt, when people realize how much was left to be done on release but they got backlash anyway, and they kept players in the dark, constantly following a carrot that we didn't even now if it WAS a carrot or a potato.
In other words they should have prioritized honesty, giving people the information so they could deal with it and manage expectations. To this day it's not clear what was the intended game, where it will grow and where it's not possible to grow or just never intended to grow.
For example, management could have created a database on what they were working on that gets updated as they go.

What I think was their strategy instead was to go silent, developers work on what's possible/intended, and taking player feedback aling the way and when they come out from the silence they try to paint a new picture on what's happening.
Just be humble. Just be honest. In the long run it works for audience perception of the company and respect towards it. Take an indie company approach again on the PR level.
Post automatically merged:

Think it was confirmed that it wasent a bug but by design. It tracks time ingame since it takes 100 days too hatch so theres some stress on the hardware. Its not mentioned in the patch notes since its a "hidden" thing or something like that. Seems the oldgen is at the peak of what it can run with Cp2077...
Even if there is stress that can't be handled, it seems lazy to leave the egg there on last Gen and not reporting it out loud.
 
Last edited:
Think it was confirmed that it wasent a bug but by design. It tracks time ingame since it takes 100 days too hatch so theres some stress on the hardware. Its not mentioned in the patch notes since its a "hidden" thing or something like that. Seems the oldgen is at the peak of what it can run with Cp2077...
That's very odd. If a game feature cannot be completed on a platform, it should not be able to get started on that platform to begin with. The dialog option at the egg should've simply been prevented from popping up. Else, what's the point of having it?
 
That's very odd. If a game feature cannot be completed on a platform, it should not be able to get started on that platform to begin with. The dialog option at the egg should've simply been prevented from popping up. Else, what's the point of having it?
If I have to guess, it was added on every platforms just before 1.5 release, then after realizing that it was "too much" on old gen, they simply removed the code (the timer) which make the egg hatch. But I'm quite confident that in the "futur" 1.6, either everything related to the iguana will be removed on XB1/PS4, either the egg will hatch "normally" :)
 
Can confirm, for some reason this feature is currently disabled for last gen, same with the new weapon inspect animations. No good reason why these shouldn't be included, given that the resources for them already exist and are used in game. I did get on support about it too.

I'm glad I was able to make the jump to current gen, very concerning for those stuck in last-gen regarding future updates.
Just can't fathom why they did it like this. This dev-team's policy has always been that if a game asset doesn't work for whatever reason, it is suppose to be cut off. Now all of a sudden they decided to let this one through. Puzzling...

Did Support say that it was intended?
 
That concept of "shut it down"; exceptionally maybe, preferably done by a moderator if it's done infringing forum rules. I try to be very careful myself about assumptions that my view is 100% correct or well informed. I guess I'd like to see this more often in others. There is a fine line towards authoritarism otherwise, backed up by group approval. Again these are general stances not encompassing extreme claims. And I'm not saying don't put your opposing views forward, not at all, it's as you say: how you defend your position.
But this part of the conversation is established in my view, it's not worth it or possible to say for sure what percentage of cases are negative criticism ending argumentation "in a bad way" as opposed to a defensive stance.

Oh, I didn't mean to claim I had any kind of observable method of determining with any kind of accuracy which side is doing it most. Just my own observations.

I was really just wondering if you had taken into consideration that some of these threads may appears to get "shut down" by people trying to protect the game when in fact it's just facts and hard cold logic being thrown in thus leading to the end of the conversation since it's hard to argue against verifiable facts and logic.

To take myself as an example. I used to believe CDPR had said the whole "thousands of NPCs with their own routine" thing that got thrown around a lot at launch as some proof of CDPR's failure. To be clear, I never believed the claim but I believed they had said it which lol, right? But if they had said it, I couldn't fault people for holding it against them. It's a pretty clear, concise and unambiguous statement on what to expect. It's @ooodrin that came along and shut that down with undeniable proof that they never said and it's a statement that was mistranslated by some gaming magazine/journalist.

To some it might appear as though Ooodrin came in to protect the game but I saw it as setting the record straight and I much prefer having the correct information even if it shuts down conversation than incorrect information.

No, the virtue signaling I mentioned applies better to the racism example, I was just trying to make that example clearer. It doesn't apply so much to feedback here. What is common on both examples is the type of argumentation that has developed in recent years and is now normalized, even if it doesn't come from that same place. The idea of empathy as projecting your set of values when taking the stance for someone/something else and thus being self assured when assuming to represent them/it. True empathy is being open to the possibility that another set of values might be just as justified as yours.

I get what you meant. I agree with you on this. It's become a serious problem these days, especially in western culture. Again, there is a very interesting conversation to be had here but not something we can actually get into.

Ok I really messed up in making my point clear here. I'm not talking about CDPR constantly pointing out their mistakes or even focusing on the past. I'm talking about them being honest from early on about what they weren't able to do and why (because they started with PC goals and then tried to adapt to consoles, including old Gen; because many ideas and how these were managed with a now much bigger team; because of investor demands on release dates; whatever it might be). But all of this with the goal of being clear about what is possible to do going forward. Being a lot more clear about the fact that there was much to do on the base programming to make the game stable and so, eliminate people's expectation about the first patches and the first years being anything other than performance and bug fixing. All the speculations about patch release dates and what they will do is CDPR's fault in my opinion.
And this would trigger backlash no doubt, when people realize how much was left to be done on release but they got backlash anyway, and they kept players in the dark, constantly following a carrot that we didn't even now if it WAS a carrot or a potato.
In other words they should have prioritized honesty, giving people the information so they could deal with it and manage expectations. To this day it's not clear what was the intended game, where it will grow and where it's not possible to grow or just never intended to grow.
For example, management could have created a database on what they were working on that gets updated as they go.

What I think was their strategy instead was to go silent, developers work on what's possible/intended, and taking player feedback aling the way and when they come out from the silence they try to paint a new picture on what's happening.
Just be humble. Just be honest. In the long run it works for audience perception of the company and respect towards it. Take an indie company approach again on the PR level.

Ok, that's much clearer to me.

Still, I find myself with the same thoughts as before. Would it really have served a purpose to be honest straight away? Other than fueling even more arguments?

In the sense that there were already a ton of debates about what went wrong at release. Still are plenty but it was way worse back then. Had they came forward immediately and outright said "look, we had trouble getting this to work on last-gen. Going forward we might have to leave last-gen out of some stuff" I don't think it would've had the effect you think it would've. Maybe on you but for most if would have fed into the whole "they should not have bothered with last-gen" argument.

Coming out right away with "well, year one will only be bug fixes and minor QoLs" would've fed into the "should've delayed again" argument. Or "they're not doing enough" argument.

And so on, I'm sure you get what I mean. Anything they could've said would've been used against them. Of that, I have absolutely no doubt. Not mentioning how dangerous it could've been with the lawsuits pending too (still could be in fact, depending on what is said).

I do understand wanting a kind of indie studio relationship between them and us but CDPR isn't a quirky little indie studio anymore. It's really important to understand that. They're a publicly traded company with over a thousand employees operating with a few studios with millions of fans across the world. It's not really possible to have this relationship anymore. Well, it is but it's risky business. A single employee saying the wrong thing at the wrong moment or even on the wrong platform can lead to a shit storm of epic proportions because everything coming out of the studio is scrutinized to an absurd degree.

It sucks but as a company grows, it can't have the same level of "personal" relationship it used to have with it's customers. It's unavoidable.
 
Top Bottom