Same as my feelings, ME multiplayer is one of the few MP I play, it is great fun but hate that fact that affects my SP story and many times I felt compelled to play it which is crap
Please no. Multiplayer would not improve this game, but rather detract from gameplay and quality overall.
If they want to do some type of survival/challenge mode where we can post our score online, that's fine with me, but MP sucks up too many resources.
If it really works, and they actually take their time to work on it, certainly! I'd love to play together with fellow 'forumities' and take down Night City together. Maybe eve hunt them down if I'm rolling a Cop 
Cooperative play can add a dynamic play experience to conversations as well as tackling physical confrontations. The dice roll conversation system in Star Wars: The Old Republic had an interesting way of tackling multiplayer communication with the game space, but had some problems with tough decision making and compromise between players about group decisions. Cooperative conversations could actually have an interesting dynamic of player to player communication through user interface (so that players can understand each others thoughts behind game interaction without audibly interfering with the conversation) as well as player to game communication. Also understand that cooperative narrative does not equal a singular narrative. Players could have separate conversations at the same time.
Cooperative combat (I use combat in the loosest sense) could have interesting puzzle mechanics involving level design and player tactics. The mechanics and system dynamics should not just revolve around the common "stay together, one person heals the other damages" trope. The cooperative combat mechanics can encourage "split" play (in the sense of not being conjoined to the hip of the other players).
Ex: Player A attracts guards by inciting them at an outpost with a taunt (such as firing a weapon in an public area) so that the guards chase and focus on Player A. Player B then sneaks into the outpost and gathers intel (let's say it's a passcode) and sends the information to Player C who is in a corporate building attempting to gain access to a locked floor. Player C receives the data from Player B and uses it to get to that floor.
In this example, three players do three different tasks in two different locations for one goal with no "combat" (gun v gun fighting). Gun fighting could have interesting cooperative elements. Some mechanics from Mass Effect 3's multiplayer (biotic explosions and tech bursts in particular) have exceptionally gratifying player experiences and encourage cooperative play.
With that said, there is still the challenge of elegantly balancing a cooperative environment so it can mesh with a singleplayer experience.
Cooperative combat (I use combat in the loosest sense) could have interesting puzzle mechanics involving level design and player tactics. The mechanics and system dynamics should not just revolve around the common "stay together, one person heals the other damages" trope. The cooperative combat mechanics can encourage "split" play (in the sense of not being conjoined to the hip of the other players).
Ex: Player A attracts guards by inciting them at an outpost with a taunt (such as firing a weapon in an public area) so that the guards chase and focus on Player A. Player B then sneaks into the outpost and gathers intel (let's say it's a passcode) and sends the information to Player C who is in a corporate building attempting to gain access to a locked floor. Player C receives the data from Player B and uses it to get to that floor.
In this example, three players do three different tasks in two different locations for one goal with no "combat" (gun v gun fighting). Gun fighting could have interesting cooperative elements. Some mechanics from Mass Effect 3's multiplayer (biotic explosions and tech bursts in particular) have exceptionally gratifying player experiences and encourage cooperative play.
With that said, there is still the challenge of elegantly balancing a cooperative environment so it can mesh with a singleplayer experience.
They must consider it from the beginning. Otherwise it will be very very hard to change it later on.
There are several MMOs that I can think of that have mixed the solo play with teaming. The Secret World can be soloed for almost all the content. Only the "dungeons" are team adventures. You can team for the normal adventures but their teaming setup is not very good so most of the time you see duos in non-team settings.
City Of Heroes also was set up to allow solo play through most of the content. It had a strong teaming set up and teams were much more powerful. Their missions got stronger the more people you had on a team. They had to take a lot of time (years) to balance their powers. Because one could play on a team the solo aspect was lessened because powers had to be decreased.
Both of those games are MMOs, with the online portion provided by the publisher on their own servers. Even if Cyberpunk 2077 would have a multiplayer, there wouldn't be online servers for it, at the very least not like MMOs have. Pretty much all MMOs can be soloed, even though most of them do have 5man and bigger missions in the form of instances and dungeons.
Still, you can't use MMOs as an example in this case, since Cyberpunk 2077 will not be an MMO.
Nowadays, mulitplayer is only necessary in linear, 7-8 hour videogames, the likes of God of War, Uncharted, etc NEED(ED) MP to attract consumers because MP usually equals longevity and "more bang", the days of me paying €50 for a Heavy Rain, DmC, Shadows of The Damned are gone, because once I beat them, that's it, there is nothing to be had replaying them, for me anyways.
RPG's that require a good 25-30 hours to complete (rush job) DO NOT NEED ANY FORM OF MP as you'll get the replay factor from multiple playthroughs, especially knowing the game will have different classes, choice, consequence, a big open world and a "non-linear" story.
If they announce something similar to Mass Effect 3, I'll probably die inside.
EDIT: Oh, and hi, I'm new here, but not to CDPR, I'm known as Cu Chulainn on the Witcher forum, but I don't really post that much so if you don't recognise me, don't worry!!
RPG's that require a good 25-30 hours to complete (rush job) DO NOT NEED ANY FORM OF MP as you'll get the replay factor from multiple playthroughs, especially knowing the game will have different classes, choice, consequence, a big open world and a "non-linear" story.
If they announce something similar to Mass Effect 3, I'll probably die inside.
EDIT: Oh, and hi, I'm new here, but not to CDPR, I'm known as Cu Chulainn on the Witcher forum, but I don't really post that much so if you don't recognise me, don't worry!!
I don't think it's a question of "need" per se, but of preference. Some people like to play with other people. Some people love to play with their friends. Others, like myself, find SP Cyberpunk a bit....odd after all these years of PnP.
And yes, i still find SP DnD games a bit odd. Where are my fellow victims? Why are my players not cowering down beneath my baleful glare? WHyyyy?
And yes, i still find SP DnD games a bit odd. Where are my fellow victims? Why are my players not cowering down beneath my baleful glare? WHyyyy?
The problem of having a multiplayer feature in a quest driven game is that either the game has to work flawlessly as a single player too, or you'll end up having to wait around for your friends to be available, or you'll go ahead on your own anyway.
Of course you could make a multiplayer save, then play a singleplayer when your friend wasn't around, but not everyone enjoys playing the same game twice at the same time.
Imagine this being a very long and well done game, where it would take tens of hours to finish the main quest line, perhaps as much as 100h+ to do most of the side quests. Much like Skyrim (which has a pretty short main quest, but you get the point). I personally don't feel like playing several hours every day, but then on other days I'll play 10h+ easy. You'd have to live by a schedule or somehow work it out with your friend so that both of you want to play at the same time.
Making it seamless in such a manner that one of you can just leave whenever they like, and then pick up later on where you left the action, while the other one still gets to play as much as he or she wants, is pretty damn hard. If my Baldur's Gate sessions taught me anything it's exactly that. Also, I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm with a friend, I feel like I have to be rushing. It's really hard just to stand around looking at something or reading something when you've got a friend fidgeting next to you waiting for you to be ready.
Nah... Multiplayer is for FPS, RTS, or other such games you can pick up and drop any time you like, or MMOs with a persistent world. Co-op RPG quest line sounds nice and all, but it seriously doesn't work for many people. Still, doesn't Skyrim have a third party online thing up and running? Perhaps fans of 2077 can make the multiplayer component.
Of course you could make a multiplayer save, then play a singleplayer when your friend wasn't around, but not everyone enjoys playing the same game twice at the same time.
Imagine this being a very long and well done game, where it would take tens of hours to finish the main quest line, perhaps as much as 100h+ to do most of the side quests. Much like Skyrim (which has a pretty short main quest, but you get the point). I personally don't feel like playing several hours every day, but then on other days I'll play 10h+ easy. You'd have to live by a schedule or somehow work it out with your friend so that both of you want to play at the same time.
Making it seamless in such a manner that one of you can just leave whenever they like, and then pick up later on where you left the action, while the other one still gets to play as much as he or she wants, is pretty damn hard. If my Baldur's Gate sessions taught me anything it's exactly that. Also, I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm with a friend, I feel like I have to be rushing. It's really hard just to stand around looking at something or reading something when you've got a friend fidgeting next to you waiting for you to be ready.
Nah... Multiplayer is for FPS, RTS, or other such games you can pick up and drop any time you like, or MMOs with a persistent world. Co-op RPG quest line sounds nice and all, but it seriously doesn't work for many people. Still, doesn't Skyrim have a third party online thing up and running? Perhaps fans of 2077 can make the multiplayer component.
I'm all for a multi-player experience. A sandbox MMO would be ideal. The issue I have with single player RPG type games is that there is a end..the story comes to a end..there is no more character development...it's not YOUR story, it's the games story. Cyberpunk is about your story is a large persistent world. Make it multi-player.
I would very much like some form of multiplayer and/or co-op but I've never seen it done properly in a project such as this. When you think about the release date as well, it's a 'long' two years off, but when you go over the source material, it suddenly feels like it's not nearly long enough. So I'd rather have them, like dymond pointed out, focus their development time in trying to put the vast amount of stuff in that got fleshed out in the original pen and paper.
Single-player should be focused on more, due to the IMMERSION that Single-player campaigns give. Multi-player is great but the immersion won't really be there due to the multitude of occurrences that will happen. CO-OP is the middle-way to IMMERSION and ACTION. If anything should be added with the main retail game it should be CO-OP, with Multi-player being nothing more than but an add-on.
Saints row 2 and Saints row 3 co-op is a seamless integration of the single player game... Friends online can drop in and drop out at any point in the game, and you always have the choice to allow or disallow it. The only thing that keeps their co-op from being perfect, is the lack of a filter to keep people who are using cheats from joining your game, or activitating cheats within it. However when you are playing with your friends, or just cool people, there is no negative impact on your single player experience at all... there is no real downside to it. They join your game, run around with you for a while, you can choose to bring them along on the next mission, or you can choose to just keep anyoen else from joining.
This is how I want to see it implemented in Cyberpunk 2077. Seamless drop-in and drop-out, open world free roam co-operative play.
This is how I want to see it implemented in Cyberpunk 2077. Seamless drop-in and drop-out, open world free roam co-operative play.