I see zero reasons to include multiplayer, that is just pulling resources that could be used for the singleplayer aspect and using it for multiplayer. Honestly, with as much cinematic moments and scripted sequences. I would say they would pretty much have to create a whole separate game to get it to work. Disable all the singleplayer missions and then create separate new missions that can incorporate multiplayer or coop. Even if you get it to work, unless its close friends, having random people in your game just turns into a yelling match filled with action junky griefers. I would rather CDPR not use resources on multiplayer and instead spend that on improving the singleplayer experience.
So, resources aren't some kind of magic pool
You can't throw money and people at a problem until it's better.
It's not like, "Hey, we have a spare three million, let's just hire more single player guys and make even more great single player!" No. You need a good team and a vision and management and resource allocation.
If all it took was money, every rich studio would be doing a Witcher 3 of their own.
What it takes is talent and hard work and good people.
Multiplayer is NOT the same kind of resource as single player. Yes, both use money, but involve different design goals, principles and designers.
So just saying, "Hey, use all your resources to improve my single player" doesn't work. Other wise EA would be the best.
CDPR does just fine at managing their single player vision - telling them to single player harder isn't going to magically make better single player or more quality SP.
The question is, given that CDPR can find resources for MP - and presuming they can dig up a good team which is far from easy to do - would multiplayer be interesting?
Not, "Hey, CDPR should focus everything they have on SP - regardless of whether they think they have enough on SP already."
Which seems to be a thing armchair developers go right at - spend more time and money and make for the better! No.
Different goals, different resources.
You can't throw money and people at a problem until it's better.
It's not like, "Hey, we have a spare three million, let's just hire more single player guys and make even more great single player!" No. You need a good team and a vision and management and resource allocation.
If all it took was money, every rich studio would be doing a Witcher 3 of their own.
What it takes is talent and hard work and good people.
Multiplayer is NOT the same kind of resource as single player. Yes, both use money, but involve different design goals, principles and designers.
So just saying, "Hey, use all your resources to improve my single player" doesn't work. Other wise EA would be the best.
CDPR does just fine at managing their single player vision - telling them to single player harder isn't going to magically make better single player or more quality SP.
The question is, given that CDPR can find resources for MP - and presuming they can dig up a good team which is far from easy to do - would multiplayer be interesting?
Not, "Hey, CDPR should focus everything they have on SP - regardless of whether they think they have enough on SP already."
Which seems to be a thing armchair developers go right at - spend more time and money and make for the better! No.
Different goals, different resources.
Not true and you know it.. Spend more money, make new questlines, additional dialog lines, more equipment etc. But no, its better to waste it all so that a 12 year old can tell my V that he slept with her mother.... There are already too many mp games, while single player rpgs are few. CDPR should keep doing what they are best at and what most of their fans expect them to do.
Nah. That's not what makes a great studio at all. CDPR should and will do what they believe in. That's what made them the best.
Doing what your fans expect just leads to repeats. Also your description of how to add to single player is not very CDPR RPG-like at all. New questlines? Extra dialogue?More equipment? It's not WoW. CDPR works on a story-based method. More money isn't going to fix that. CDPR has millions. Money is not their issue.
There are many many single player RPGs. I'm sure you've played Divinity Original Sin 1 and 2, Torment - Original and Numenera version, Fallouts 1-4, DA:O and sequels, Bloodlines, Redemption, PoE, Shadowrun and sequels, Wasteland and sequels, Elder Scrolls series, Neverwinter Nights, BG and sequels, Gothic, Arisen, Elex, Kingdom Come..these are just off the top of my head.
Hey, if you don't like MP or don't want it in CP2077, fine. But saying CDPR can't handle their finances and can't afford to do both? Or that we are short on RPGs? No.
We are not short on sp rpgs, we are extreamly short on those. Apart from W3 last few years didn't give us a single rpg of similar quality. Developing a proper multi will cost about the same as a complete big singleplayer expansion at least. So yeah, not worth it. But it will happen, money was wasted on multi, at the expense of further developing singleplayer campaign, so this discussion is a bit pointless, sadly.
We cannot know for sure if it was wasted money, having an online version of the game means potentially more revenue, so more money can be allocated for the development in the first place, and new employees can be hired specifically to work on multiplayer. Was making Gwent and Thronebreaker a waste of resources? After all, the same ~100 people could have worked on a single player AAA RPG instead. But it is not necessarily that simple.
Well, it depends on a point of view, but were it not for gwent, Cyberpunk would be already released...
Could make the multiplayer part a DLC. So those that want their single player with no other player interference could do that. And those that want MP/Coop could have it also.
Adding on a Coop experience wouldn't be too hard, nor would it have to be too complicated. Could make you split rewards among the players, so you advance slower at the benefit of having an easier time completing some missions.
Adding on a Coop experience wouldn't be too hard, nor would it have to be too complicated. Could make you split rewards among the players, so you advance slower at the benefit of having an easier time completing some missions.
Bwahahahaha! No. Just no. Utterly different teams - and Gwent actually generates revenue.
Where do you get this information anyway?
Nearly every single-player oriented game with a competitive multi-player tacked on is like that.
And cooperative multi-player thats been tacked on to a single-player game generally loses its appeal very quickly.
People that want to play a single-player game will play a single-player game and people that want a multi-player game will play a multi-player game.
Its a waste of time to develop multi-player for this game. Most people will dip their toe into it, think "oh thats neat!", play it a little, and then never touch it again. Thats why I believe its so gimmicky to add a multi-player just to say you have it.
The thought of playing an assassin type solo knocking off other classes online? I'm down with that.
Sardukhar...Not even remotely different teams. Anyway, honestly, discussing with someone who thinks that adding new questlines etc. would make Cyberpunk more like WOW is pointless.
Yeah they are - I've been there and seen the teams. They are in wholly different areas, different people, different goals, everything. You could put them in different buildings only it'd be a longer walk to the cafeteria(s).
You still haven't said where you are getting this kind of (utterly inaccurate) info.
Last edited:
Yes please!
4 player coop, simple objectives, waves of enemies of increasing difficultyunlock/buy upgrades after each wave
we can start as a complete team or with bots until other players drop in
similar to Mass Effect 3 or Vermintide 2
team deathmatch is good too
Epic
4 player coop, simple objectives, waves of enemies of increasing difficultyunlock/buy upgrades after each wave
we can start as a complete team or with bots until other players drop in
similar to Mass Effect 3 or Vermintide 2
team deathmatch is good too
Epic
Co op only as long as it's not forced. If it feels natural then I'm all in for it.
No PvP please. NO!
No PvP please. NO!
Unless CDPR goes more-or-less the MMO route I can't see multi-player involving much more then driving and shooting. Which means even if it's not intended to be PvP it will be because what else is there to do?
And making an mini-MMO (say 4 to 10 player) involves just as much effort, and some different skills on the part of the code monkeys, as making a single-player game. Just adding multi-player code to a single-player game is a recipe for disaster unless you ONLY play with friends.
What about if you get to fight other players in a PvP environment as part of a 'pit fight' type deal? Or have a 'Hack Off' with other players?
Unless the game has better security than a concrete-encased safe sitting on the bottom of the Marianas Trench, it's going to be hacked to the point that PVP is just a competition to see whose always-invincible single-shot-kill hack outperforms the competition.
That and I personally have zero interest in PvP and the childish, crude/rude, and/or arrogant behavior that inevitably accompanies it.
Can't say I care much about it, so I picked the fourth option.
But since we are speculating on it I always imagined that the sort of multiplayer that could work in this type of game would be something similar to the "summons/invasions" in Dark Souls.
You could have the possibility to "hire mercenaries" from specific terminal to help you with some missions and they could be summoned players in a co-op mode... Or you could have missions where "enemy agents" (aka "Invaders" could be automatically summoned by a faction to help fighting back your intrusion.
Nothing even remotely close to a persistent MMO-like multiplayer.
I can't really see that turning in anything else than a big mess to manage.
But since we are speculating on it I always imagined that the sort of multiplayer that could work in this type of game would be something similar to the "summons/invasions" in Dark Souls.
You could have the possibility to "hire mercenaries" from specific terminal to help you with some missions and they could be summoned players in a co-op mode... Or you could have missions where "enemy agents" (aka "Invaders" could be automatically summoned by a faction to help fighting back your intrusion.
Nothing even remotely close to a persistent MMO-like multiplayer.
I can't really see that turning in anything else than a big mess to manage.