How EA came to be what they are with their bland titles is because they try to avoid risks. I remember ME3 being promoted as battle for the Earth then we fought 70% of game human faction Cerberus, Earth was one level which really wasn't anything to write home about. Ending was sort of icing the cake LOL.
Writers who can't write, animators who can't animate but they sure are good at cutting corners, very safe yet very bland. Cyberpunk 2077 is very different from what EA does, it took one hell of a gamble and it won some, it lost some but won more than it lost.
Ubisoft then I guess has internal policy regarding their games to include certain things. They have their audience and I think as consumer it's handy that you know what is what. Again Cyberpunk 2077 has nothing to do with that. Playing practical merc without getting involved with looting and crafting stuff is perfectly valid playstyle, I did that.
I don't know if I believe in brand loyalty to that much. CDPR does what it does. For story driven single player games, if they leave that position, someone will take that spot in the market.
Why are these discussion turning to be so much about some sort of morale?
They may include trains and busses but in the end if they are crap, what was achieved there?
Monowire hacking was way worse than what we got, why in the world would anybody want that changed?
Why would citizens of the Night City behave like community of 12 people hundreds of years ago?
I don't believe all feedback easily perceived as negative actually is even that in the big picture.
I don't know, regarding scope improving the product, I posted
this yesterday and I sort of wasn't surprised that there weren't any replies. I don't know I think something like that could be within scope to realistically pan out.