Interesting sales numbers for CP2077 on PS5

+
on your idea that "upgrades" would count as "sales" toward a game's rating. What I meant was, things that are "downloads" -- patches, free DLC, in-app purchases, etc. should not count toward a game's rating. It's just part of the game.
No, of course they don't count as sales. (y)
 
Cyberpunk was released in bad time. Its modern game with modern hardware requirements and it came to the market during global pandemic situation, global chip crisis and crypto fever. So i beliveve that many PC gamers were waitin for new graphic card and its price fall, consolists were waitin for available consoles for normal price. and the Q2 2022 changed everything. So from my point of view (i work in eshop with IT so i have some overview) ppl finally bought new hardware and with new hardware bought even CP2077. At least here in Europe.
 
Cyberpunk was released in bad time. Its modern game with modern hardware requirements and it came to the market during global pandemic situation, global chip crisis and crypto fever. So i beliveve that many PC gamers were waitin for new graphic card and its price fall, consolists were waitin for available consoles for normal price. and the Q2 2022 changed everything. So from my point of view (i work in eshop with IT so i have some overview) ppl finally bought new hardware and with new hardware bought even CP2077. At least here in Europe.
That's very interesting to consider. I wonder if there would ever be a way to tell how many people had a very negative reaction to the game, trying to run it on very outdated hardware, and just having a miserable experience with it overall. I am not in any way trying to use that as an excuse for the issues that did exist. (The bug lists for the patches and improvements in stability and performance over time are proof that there were significant issues.) But I also know that on my own end, I played through the entire game with only two crashes, and encountered only a handful of bugs. Performance was pretty consistent throughout, and it never dropped to unplayable levels or anything. I wonder if the reception would have been better if more people could have gotten their hands on hardware that could muscle through some of those early issues.
 
That's very interesting to consider. I wonder if there would ever be a way to tell how many people had a very negative reaction to the game, trying to run it on very outdated hardware, and just having a miserable experience with it overall. I am not in any way trying to use that as an excuse for the issues that did exist. (The bug lists for the patches and improvements in stability and performance over time are proof that there were significant issues.) But I also know that on my own end, I played through the entire game with only two crashes, and encountered only a handful of bugs. Performance was pretty consistent throughout, and it never dropped to unplayable levels or anything. I wonder if the reception would have been better if more people could have gotten their hands on hardware that could muscle through some of those early issues.
Thanks for your reaction. Some time ago (few weeks back) I read some article about the most used graphic card between steam users. The most widespread graphic card is still GTX 1060. I also owned this graphic card and I was waiting for the new generation release in 2020. But how you know, I didn't get any chance same like millions of others. I wanted to buy Radeon 6800 XT and in 2020 this graphic cards were totally unavailable and when first cards became available, it was for 3x bigger price than expected. So I bought it in 2022. Similar situation was with PS5 and XsX/S. Unabailable in my country since release. Even 1 year after release of PS5 there were no pieces in wholesale distribution. I wasn't fan of Cyberpunk 2077. I heard something from colleagues at work. But I added it to the list of games, I would try in the future, equipped with the new graphic card.

The release of Cyberpunk 2077 was very sad. And I am sure it wasn't decision of the authors to release the game in the end of 2020. I guess it was forced by producent (or simply those people who just see the financial page of whole project). Maybe they knew that the situation will be even worse and tried to release the game before it will be even worse. I saw some videos on YouTube with many different people from the background of Cyberpunk development and I could see their enthusiasm for their work. Music authors, Keanu and other motion capture guys, etc etc. They gave everything to their work and if you play Cyberpunk, you can really see it and feel it. I can't believe that those same people wanted to ruin it all by release the game with so many bugs. And the worst, it ruined the reputation of the game. BUT and this is the most important, developers didn't let the game be how EA does and we have a great game here. Some minor bugs are still present sometimes, but nothing important what ruins the game experience (at least on my side).

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's very interesting to consider. I wonder if there would ever be a way to tell how many people had a very negative reaction to the game, trying to run it on very outdated hardware, and just having a miserable experience with it overall.

I have an okay processor, but for the bulk of my playing time a very poor graphics card. I was playing in medium resolution with 30 FPS. And I fell in love with the game. (It's why I eventually shelled out the money to get a much better card, but that was only after playing the game for a year).

Am I an exception? Hard to tell!

Certainly, it looks like the experience on last-gen consoles was incredibly bad.

Cheers,
Merric
 
That's very interesting to consider. I wonder if there would ever be a way to tell how many people had a very negative reaction to the game, trying to run it on very outdated hardware, and just having a miserable experience with it overall. I am not in any way trying to use that as an excuse for the issues that did exist. (The bug lists for the patches and improvements in stability and performance over time are proof that there were significant issues.) But I also know that on my own end, I played through the entire game with only two crashes, and encountered only a handful of bugs. Performance was pretty consistent throughout, and it never dropped to unplayable levels or anything. I wonder if the reception would have been better if more people could have gotten their hands on hardware that could muscle through some of those early issues.
For me it was the other way around. It ran ok for me at release and i dident encounter any quest bugs my first playtrough (did not finish that). The game ran at higher Fps at higher settings(DLSS, every other setting is maxed out) back then. Started over a couple of times after with pretty much every major patch and seen more quest bugs after.

Now its fine but i think it was 1.1 - 1.2 that hade the most issues for me. Havent played that much lately but 1.5 runs kinda meh, looks great but its very heavy too run at 4k.
 
Thanks for your reaction. Some time ago (few weeks back) I read some article about the most used graphic card between steam users. The most widespread graphic card is still GTX 1060. I also owned this graphic card and I was waiting for the new generation release in 2020. But how you know, I didn't get any chance same like millions of others. I wanted to buy Radeon 6800 XT and in 2020 this graphic cards were totally unavailable and when first cards became available, it was for 3x bigger price than expected. So I bought it in 2022. Similar situation was with PS5 and XsX/S. Unabailable in my country since release. Even 1 year after release of PS5 there were no pieces in wholesale distribution. I wasn't fan of Cyberpunk 2077. I heard something from colleagues at work. But I added it to the list of games, I would try in the future, equipped with the new graphic card.

The release of Cyberpunk 2077 was very sad. And I am sure it wasn't decision of the authors to release the game in the end of 2020. I guess it was forced by producent (or simply those people who just see the financial page of whole project). Maybe they knew that the situation will be even worse and tried to release the game before it will be even worse. I saw some videos on YouTube with many different people from the background of Cyberpunk development and I could see their enthusiasm for their work. Music authors, Keanu and other motion capture guys, etc etc. They gave everything to their work and if you play Cyberpunk, you can really see it and feel it. I can't believe that those same people wanted to ruin it all by release the game with so many bugs. And the worst, it ruined the reputation of the game. BUT and this is the most important, developers didn't let the game be how EA does and we have a great game here. Some minor bugs are still present sometimes, but nothing important what ruins the game experience (at least on my side).

[...]
I'm glad to hear you didn't give into the gouging that was going on. That's not healthy. Literally turning scalping into an industry standard. There is absolutely no good that will come of that.

But there is definitely a lot about the game that really drew me in and surprised me. I loved the development of the characters. Especially Johnny. I wasn't really all that sure what to expect with Johnny, but I was not disappointed. It's a fascinating concept to explore an iconic character without spoiling the mystique that made Cyberpunk what it is.

I have an okay processor, but for the bulk of my playing time a very poor graphics card. I was playing in medium resolution with 30 FPS. And I fell in love with the game. (It's why I eventually shelled out the money to get a much better card, but that was only after playing the game for a year).

Am I an exception? Hard to tell!

Certainly, it looks like the experience on last-gen consoles was incredibly bad.

Cheers,
Merric
I still don't mind 30 fps when required. (Like for Dark Souls 1 and 2 -- as 60 FPS messes with both the physics and weapon durability.) Fortunately, I was able to get a pretty consistent 45-56 FPS on my 980 ti...which has now sadly passed on to that great big salvage yard in the sky. (Easily the best system I've ever had. It was taken too soon.) I have an RTX 3060 now, and it's not too bad. We'll see if this one can squeeze out a few more FPS for my next run. I'll see about ray tracing when I run it again, but I'll probably let that go for the extra performance.

Yeah -- the console situation for XB1 and PS4 was the opposite of good. That's not really something I think anyone would debate. But here, it's more of a focus on PC users, especially. I have to say, I think the OP is onto something about the hardware market being so backed up, and people being really dissatisfied with the game overall simply because they couldn't get the GPUs, especially, that would give them the experience they wanted.

For me it was the other way around. It ran ok for me at release and i dident encounter any quest bugs my first playtrough (did not finish that). The game ran at higher Fps at higher settings(DLSS, every other setting is maxed out) back then. Started over a couple of times after with pretty much every major patch and seen more quest bugs after.

Now its fine but i think it was 1.1 - 1.2 that hade the most issues for me. Havent played that much lately but 1.5 runs kinda meh, looks great but its very heavy too run at 4k.
Heh...that's bugs for you. It will be hit and miss for everyone. Took about 5 restarts of TW3 for me to make it all the way through for the first time. Didn't have any major issues with CP2077 at all. To this day, I can't play through a game of XCOM Enemy Within without the last mission in the game bugging the flip out (the doors stop drawing in and won't open). Sometimes, we just win the hurt lottery.
 
Top Bottom