Keep in mind, throwing more carbon units at a given area of a game does not necessarily translate to more or better content in the given area. In fact, it can actually have negative consequences. To use an example. Let's say they have 200 people working on the various areas of the "single-player team". Let's also say they decide to add 40 people to work on the "multiplayer team". Claiming they should move those multiplayer "resources" over to the single-player teams to get 240 people there doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It doesn't work that way.
Also keep in mind, these developers are in all likelihood specialized to begin with. Different people perform different roles on a given project. You wouldn't realistically shift people from the "writing team" into the "graphics team" to make the graphics better. Again, it doesn't work that way.
The notion MP support is going to translate to diminished SP feels way off base.
I've been assuming this was how CP2077 Online was going to go down, but I guess thanks for comfirming it CDPR.
I'm curious what it'll be like, but if the main game is good I'll be too into that to really be bothered. But hey, developers have to make money, and if GTA Online is any indicator as to how online DLCs keep a game alive, thriving, and generating money, then do what you gotta do.
I'm curious what it'll be like, but if the main game is good I'll be too into that to really be bothered. But hey, developers have to make money, and if GTA Online is any indicator as to how online DLCs keep a game alive, thriving, and generating money, then do what you gotta do.
I frankly think some (to those it may concern) worry too much. Not saying they can't worry nor saying they can't dislike certain developments, as those are primarily subjective aspects by default. Akin to starting a debate over favorite colors or food.
But in the case of future MP I do wonder, with some going as far as saying they hope the company horribly fails and never touch MP for eternity because they fear they might dislike MP or lose something on their SP experience.
God behold a company exploring new waters and evolving! (slight sarcasm present)
Not all of those developments must inherently be bad or end bad and here I can only suggest to those (it may concern) to not let abstract fears take over too much.
MP is relatively far into the future. If you ask me, nothing to seriously worry about now if you have doubts. And if you are not into MP, please consider some of your arguments. E. g. saying you wish the company to fail horribly with MP sounds a bit selfish to those who might be open to MP or like MP.
One obviously doesn't need to like MP, but at the same time you don't necessarily must spoil it for those who do, is what I try to say. If they can sufficiently manage SP and MP without MP costs really resulting in an SP content loss and can cater to not just more different people, but provide more to the same people (who' d both use SP and MP) why not?
But in essence it is future talk. We can ponder and wonder all day until and beyond release but I'll eventually wait until we get something more solid.
But in the case of future MP I do wonder, with some going as far as saying they hope the company horribly fails and never touch MP for eternity because they fear they might dislike MP or lose something on their SP experience.
God behold a company exploring new waters and evolving! (slight sarcasm present)
Not all of those developments must inherently be bad or end bad and here I can only suggest to those (it may concern) to not let abstract fears take over too much.
MP is relatively far into the future. If you ask me, nothing to seriously worry about now if you have doubts. And if you are not into MP, please consider some of your arguments. E. g. saying you wish the company to fail horribly with MP sounds a bit selfish to those who might be open to MP or like MP.
One obviously doesn't need to like MP, but at the same time you don't necessarily must spoil it for those who do, is what I try to say. If they can sufficiently manage SP and MP without MP costs really resulting in an SP content loss and can cater to not just more different people, but provide more to the same people (who' d both use SP and MP) why not?
But in essence it is future talk. We can ponder and wonder all day until and beyond release but I'll eventually wait until we get something more solid.
people were wondering what the point of CC is if you barely get to see your own character. now with the announcement of mp it totally makes sense. you're not supposed to see your own character but it's important that others see you and your sick purple level rare boots you're going to grind for a hundred hours. if you don't want to grind for them you'll be able to buy them at the cdpr store for 10$ a piece. you know it's going to happen. so yes multplayer always effects singleplayer.
No surprise this was going to happen. Even when they said it was in R&D it was a given. MP means money and CDPR went public after TW3. Anything you knew about them before then can't be assumed. They now answer to shareholders and when shareholders want continued revenue, online is where games will go. TW3's success ultimately meant a shift at CDPR. Some of you might be surprised at what they do going forward
Pure speculation, spreading fear, uncertainty & doubt without a single bit of info from official Cyberpunk 2077 sources to back it up. If any, there is evidence to the contrary, considering their publicly stated stance on microtransactions. Just because you don't like FPP doesn't mean there is a big evil conspiracy, and neither FPP focus nor multiplayer R&D is new. Only thing that changed is they confirmed the rarity of TPP cutscenes (as if the 2018 demo was no indicator: nothing of consequence was in TPP beyond establishing takes) and that their multiplayer R&D didvision finally got the go ahead.
Their "stance" on microtransactions was that they don't belong in a single player game afaik. That goes out the window.
If shareholders say do it, better believe they will
Post automatically merged:
I'd bet a couple copies of the game you'll be able to have multiple/different apartments in multiplayer. And you'll for sure have content that is exclusive to the multiplayer side of things, whether it's cars, guns, or clothing. Even though multiplayer is coming out at a later time, that doesn't mean the content wasn't cut/held back for multiplayer
I REALLY it won't affect single player experience at all, I'm already fed up with Mass Effect 3 multiplayer affecting single player and even worst: breaking Ashley because of a multiplayer balance patch...
Marcin Iwiński, Michał Kiciński, Piotr Nielubowicz & Adam Kiciński control 55% (as of May 2019) and OFE reduced their stock below 5%. I think i won't hold my breath...
wait so are you saying multiplayer is not going get monetized at all?
If i had to speculate, i would say of course it will be monetized - if they provide quality content, i see absolutely no problem with that. As long as they are using a pro-consumer model and not cheap ripoffs & pay to win, why shouldn't they ?
CD Projekt was a publically traded company since The Witcher 2 development. Plus they already had several online games in their portfolio based on their big franchises: Witcher Versus, Witcher Battle Arena, Gwent. The management also holds the majority of shares.
And I can bet whatever that multiplayer mode ends up being, it won't be GTA Online style game, which means that multiple apartments thing definitely won't be part of it.
Quite the opposite for that one. They added the way for character skills to affect the dialogues based on feedback.
Last edited:
Comparing apples to peanuts there, where you could effectively compare CP2077 much better to GTA V from what we've seen. I bet it will be similar to GTA O. Fixers scattered through the city, missions that can be run by a group co op, PvP in the open world or in missions if those occur in the regular instance of the world.
What do you think CP2077 multiplayer would even look like if not that? LOL
so what would be pro consumer monetization? because my guess, that they are going to sell skins/characters/guns/cars etc for real money just like every other gamedev is FUD in your opinion
To me this seems logical. If I understand you right, you complain that MP morphing into existence means downsides for SP.
Do people fail to see that time to release is limited? An assumption: they likely cut apartments out because of time constraints. If they had enough time to weave them in to please customers you could assume they'd do it and not scratch that thought and shift all major interactions to the one you get. The implication here is that it would be a notable level of work to deliver the same spread on multiple apartments in due time, until release.
Basically, I mostly see time and resource constraints (you cannot do everything, there will eventually limits and you run out of time). On the contrary I'd argue that MP will naturally allow for more things to be added, perhaps into SP, too. Why? Once release is off their chest, they have more time and possibilities again. They can add what could not be sufficiently added for SP due to the time window.
Long story short, people complain about a 'diminished SP experience' because of MP. But MP is far away. I primarily see time and resource constraints for SP due to release window. Whether they will add multiple apartments as DLC after release? Can only speculate.
But I'd argue that later MP can allow them to add what could not be added for SP, rather than arguing they purposely cut things out of SP to have something for MP.
That's how I see it, at least. Either way I think going nuts about this now is but an activity to kill time perhaps, from my point of view. I'll really criticize it when it's there with solid details. From what I can tell, it's still years away. So... yeah.
Exactly FUD. Cause CDPR are very much not doing what some other game devs are doing, and publicly saying so. A huge part of their image is built - and built on purpose - on this pro-consumer stance (and their great games). They generated a tremendous amount of good will with that strategy. I see no reason they would throw that investement out of the window for very short term gains (and likely huge backlash).
Of course i don't know any specifics. We don't even know what kind of multiplayer it will be and how expensive it will be to maintain (e.g. Divinity:Original Sin 2 Multiplayer is and can remain unmonetized since its peer to peer). If i had to guess (and this is a pure guess), like in single player: Minor stuff for free, but major expansions are payed for.
so your guess is that the multiplayer mode of cyberpunk 2077 is going to get paid expansions eventually? that sounds pretty unrealistic just from a standpoint of splitting up the playerbase of multiplayer. not even EA is doing that anymore with battlefield.
i think my theory is much more realistic. they are going to sell clothing and gun skins.
as for their image, cdpr has such a rabid fanbase, i'm sure they are going to find ways to defend that practice, after all "it's just cosmetics" and "you don't have to buy it if you don't want to"