Ignoring the fact that "dead game" is the one you're no longer being able to run:
a) lot of people own GOG version
b) Cyberpunk will be receiving free dlc and paid expansions in the future so its numbers will inevitably go upwards again
c) who cares if Cyberpunk will still have 20000 players in 5-10 years
Ignoring the fact that by that "dead game" i did not meant you're no longer being able to run but by dead game i meant the game numbers will go down even further and get forgettable really fast like Anthem.
a)lot of people can play Skyrim basically on anything. I played recently on PSVR(I played more a ten year old game in december-january then then cyberturd 2077). Witcher 3 its on gog too.
b)future possibilities and speculation have no value as arguments when going by recent experience with CDPR and their false promises and lies
c)someone was of other impression
It's your imaginitive argument, nobody said game of decade has to be played by any player even 1 month after realease, it's your personal criteria. I could ask how many people played and how many hours each of titles, and I could make "argument" that Cyberpunk is game of the decade or because 1 million (steam) players played it at peak it destroyed Skyrim and any other single player game in history, so that's why it's greates game ever.
You see it - very easy to write nonsense.
It's a comparison between a 10 year old game and 5 year old game which shows the game is not what was meant to be: next coming of Jesus when it relates to gaming, but a turd which most likely will be put out of its misery soon.
It sold well because of good marketing.
That's it.
The game is really mediocre. A glorified turd.
Movie trailer can mislead by showing a lot of action, when movie is not about action. It happened thousand of times with many variations. if they will show best parts of movie, and ignore worst how it's not misleading?
I didn't say film trailers can't be misleading, I said it is a comparison which doesn't really work, because films and games are two entirely different things.
It's like if people complain about games only having four hours of story/campaign and others tell them that a film is only around 90-100 minutes long.
It is not the same, so the comparison is moot.
And the second point I was trying to make is that even if we accept a comparison between a film and a game trailer (which we shouldn't), film trailers almost entirely show only what is actually in the film, even if they might give the film a wrong/different spin. Which means, even if you make that comparison it still doesn't work as a defence for CDPR's actions.
Movie trailer can mislead by showing a lot of action, when movie is not about action. It happened thousand of times with many variations. if they will show best parts of movie, and ignore worst how it's not misleading?
So movies advertising themselves in a misleading fashion is a defense for video games doing it? Gotcha....
I say the following in the most non-serious way possible, so don't take offense . It's like an 8 year old walking up to another on the playground and punching them in the face. When scolded they turn around and defend themselves by pointing to the other 8 year old who did too. "Why did you do that Timmy? Bad Timmy.". "Billy did it too!!!". Meanwhile, poor Johnny is over there with two black eyes.
I didn't say film trailers can't be misleading, I said it is a comparison which doesn't really work, because films and games are two entirely different things.
It's like if people complain about games only having four hours of story/campaign and others tell them that a film is only around 90-100 minutes long.
It is not the same, so the comparison is moot.
And the second point I was trying to make is that even if we accept a comparison between a film and a game trailer (which we shouldn't), film trailers almost entirely show only what is actually in the film, even if they might give the film a wrong/different spin. Which means, even if you make that comparison it still doesn't work as a defence for CDPR's actions.
A.CD Project Red handed out only PC copies(they did not issue any review codes for console) for review and disallowing reviewers from using any of their own gameplay footage. (one example YonYea:
,
)
DreamcastGuy story is very telling too.
B. It is an objective fact that CD Project Red themselves admitted they tried to hide the gameplay on base consoles from gamers: "First of all," reads the statement, "we would like to start by apologizing to you for not showing the game on base last-gen consoles before it premiered and, in consequence, not allowing you to make a more informed decision about your purchase.”
C. The Ps4 gameplay trailer does not contain Ps4 gameplay footage but pc gameplay footage.
D. They hyped the game as being and I quote: “We believe that having a world you can interact with and which reacts to your presence is a key part of a good open-world experience,” Tost said. “Dynamic environments ultimately serve to fulfill that promise exactly: they help to enhance your immersion, the game world to become more alive and believable, and — what’s especially important when it comes to Cyberpunk 2077 — add a whole different level of weight and grit. Combat becomes that much more vicious too, enhancing the feeling of a world shrouded in violence and danger. Given all that, let me just say that we’re working hard on making sure that our environments look just as good when they’re untouched as when they’re getting blown up, without sacrificing the performance.” https://gamingbolt.com/cyberpunk-20...etting-freedom-of-choice-side-quests-and-more
Yet the AI(Npc’s roaming the world, police System) is moronic, brain dead, either barely or badly reacting.
Police officers spawn at your location like they’ve been teleported Star Trek style, then when your're finished, just run a few blocks away and they'll vanish back to their Enterprise, that quick and easy.
You could shoot at a trashcan and a dozen NPCs will all simultaneously go into a crouch position in sync right in front of you. They all give you the same generic witty/sassy comment when you try to talk to anyone and they all walk aimlessly on a predetermined path.
Barely brushing your shoulder against a police officer while waking and suddenly everyone was on your ass for no logical reason.
You stand on the road, blocking all cars in the lane, and none of the NPC is going to do shit about it. All of them will just stare at you. None will try and drive around, run you over etc. For example if you stand in front of a line of cars GTA, they’ll wait about 5 seconds before individually running you over.
You can steal any object you find in the world without anyone reacting to it.
GTA San Andreas, Gothic had better AI. RDR2 in terms of AI humiliates this game.
Q: A world you can interact too?! You can’t even sit down.
You can’t customize, change your appearance later in the game, can’t customize your car, you can’t pickpocket NPCs, no games you can’t do much of anything.
So movies advertising themselves in a misleading fashion is a defense for video games doing it? Gotcha....
I say the following in the most non-serious way possible, so don't take offense . It's like an 8 year old walking up to another on the playground and punching them in the face. When scolded they turn around and defend themselves by pointing to the other 8 year old who did too. "Why did you do that Timmy? Bad Timmy.". "Billy did it too!!!". Meanwhile, poor Johnny is over there with two black eyes.
Untrue. EVERY video had a 'subject to change' (or whatever exact verbiage they used) watermark on it and I also would suggest it is IMPLIED by the very nature of the business NOTHING said should be taken for granted especially a year+ out from release. I get it, not everyone is savvy with how the game industry works or has been following games dev for years. But this is the reality, nothing is a promise or a guarantee in game dev. And if you blindly swallow hook, line and sinker what a marketing team says or dev promoting a feature over a year out says I would suggest that some of the blame falls on the naive consumer for not understanding the process or being informed.
Ignoring the fact that by that "dead game" i did not meant you're no longer being able to run but by dead game i meant the game numbers will go down even further and get forgettable really fast like Anthem.
Anthem is a live service multiplayer game. You need other players to play it the way it was intended and it relies on central server which can and will be shut down eventually. That's not how things work with Cyberpunk.
a)lot of people can play Skyrim basically on anything. I played recently on PSVR(I played more a ten year old game in december-january then then cyberturd 2077). Witcher 3 its on gog too.
Your speculation was that in 3 months no one will be playing the game. To that I said "new content means more concurrent players, and Cyberpunk will get new content".
Who? And again, why is that even relevant?
Deus Ex: Human Revolution and The Witcher 2 came out in 2011 too and they have about 1000 concurrent players on Steam. Does this argument prove that they are utter failures?
Ignoring the fact that by that "dead game" i did not meant you're no longer being able to run but by dead game i meant the game numbers will go down even further and get forgettable really fast like Anthem.
a)lot of people can play Skyrim basically on anything. I played recently on PSVR(I played more a ten year old game in december-january then then cyberturd 2077). Witcher 3 its on gog too.
b)future possibilities and speculation have no value as arguments when going by recent experience with CDPR and their false promises and lies
c)someone was of other impression
Post automatically merged:
It's a comparison between a 10 year old game and 5 year old game which shows the game is not what was meant to be: next coming of Jesus when it relates to gaming, but a turd which most likely will be put out of its misery soon.
It sold well because of good marketing.
That's it.
The game is really mediocre. A glorified turd.
So movies advertising themselves in a misleading fashion is a defense for video games doing it? Gotcha....
I say the following in the most non-serious way possible, so don't take offense . It's like an 8 year old walking up to another on the playground and punching them in the face. When scolded they turn around and defend themselves by pointing to the other 8 year old who did too. "Why did you do that Timmy? Bad Timmy.". "Billy did it too!!!". Meanwhile, poor Johnny is over there with two black eyes.
I don't defend actions like this, just saying that marketing is full of bs, no matter of movie/game industry (seen it 1000 times). Shouldn't be it criticized? Sure it should. But don't act like surprised kid when something like this will happen. I've bought game week after release and never believed marketing. I mean I don't want to be rude, but I do feel some kind of sadistic pleasure when reading posts of people raging over game, released more than 2 months ago I'm happy customer and you're not, what can I do?
I don't even think you people read posts. I criticized their marketing and how aggresive it was, it was off puting, but you know, you know better
Anthem is a live service multiplayer game. You need other players to play it the way it was intended and it relies on central server which can and will be shut down eventually. That's not how things work with Cyberpunk.
My point is that PC playerbase is split for Cyberpunk, not for Skyrim.
Your speculation was that in 3 months no one will be playing the game. To that I said "new content means more concurrent players, and Cyberpunk will get new content".
Who? And again, why is that even relevant?
Deus Ex: Human Revolution and The Witcher 2 came out in 2011 too and they have about 1000 concurrent players on Steam. Does this argument prove that they are utter failures?
"Anthem is a live service multiplayer game. You need other players to play it the way it was intended and it relies on central server which can and will be shut down eventually. That's not how things work with Cyberpunk."
Straw-man.
My point with Anthem was that the game died because was a turd.
"My point is that PC playerbase is split for Cyberpunk, not for Skyrim."
Q: Your point was that there may be players unaccounted for no?
If not your argument does not refute anything. LOL.
Q: Witcher 3 player base is split too, no?
"Your speculation was that in 3 months no one will be playing the game. To that I said "new content means more concurrent players, and Cyberpunk will get new content"."
But going with recent CDPR lies and promises that is not a guarantee.
Ignoring my key point and straw-manning is really bad
"Who? And again, why is that even relevant?
Deus Ex: Human Revolution and The Witcher 2 came out in 2011 too and they have about concurrent 1000 players on Steam. Does this argument prove that they are utter failures?"
Off course not.
Your argument is ignoring certain facts.
Deus Ex maintain a high player average base for a year. Witcher 2 has a more stable player base too.
There is no sudden decline of 90% in one month.
The decline in Cyberpunk 2077 is extremely bad.
You just trying to rationalize your emoptional opinion. I don't buy it sorry, already wrote your argument is pure nonsense.
I don't defend actions like this, just saying that marketing is full of bs, no matter of movie/game industry (seen it 1000 times). Shouldn't be it criticized? Sure it should. But don't act like surprised kid when something like this will happen. I've bought game week after release and never believed marketing. I mean I don't want to be rude, but I do feel some kind of sadistic pleasure when reading posts of people raging over game, released more than 2 months ago I'm happy customer and you're not, what can I do?
I don't even think you people read posts. I criticized their marketing and how aggresive it was, it was off puting, but you know, you know better
"You just trying to rationalize your emoptional opinion. I don't buy it sorry, already wrote your argument is pure nonsense."
Ad hominem and talking about me and therefore avoiding the argument is really bad debate form.
It's best not to say anything if one runs out of arguments.
"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. "
At this point, people are now attacking each other and the "rules" of how to argue. As well as calling CDPR and each other liars or nonsensical. Rule 1 is kindness and respect towards each other. Too many moderations now.
or because 1 million (steam) players played it at peak it destroyed Skyrim and any other single player game in history, so that's why it's greates game ever.
