Your Fears For the Game - Combined Thread

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are rumours about Game as Service with Cyberpunk.
Let me put it that way, i do not judge, maybe will not buy game, but do not take it personal. There is strong trend for PvE online coop shooter. Like Destiny, Warframe, Anthem. People want to play that. There is no wrong in making games for large audience.
If you want to jump on the train and have own Destiny, some players want that.
It would be great to have single player story experience of some form at some point. Maybe try 2in1. With good SP story, and if you want co-op or pvp multiplayer city in addition and after... maybe that is the way to go.
But i must see the advantage of having stream of cash and ability to expand game over years.
Try to avoid P2W and gambling. It is hard to like the game which cheats you.
If the game is good players will buy fancy hat (cosmetics) just to support game.
 
Last edited:
felixsylvaris;n9858131 said:
There are rumours about Game as Service with Cyberpunk.
Let me put it that way, i do not judge, maybe will not buy game, but do not take it personal. There is strong trend for PvE online coop shooter. Like Destiny, Warframe, Anthem.
If you want to jump on the train and have own Destiny, some players want that.
It would be great to have single player story experience of some form at some point.
But i must see the advantage of having stream of cash and ability to expand game over years.
Try to avoid P2W and gambling. It is hard to like the game which cheats you.
If the game is good players will buy fancy hat (cosmetics) just to support game.

Yeah, if they go this route, I'm not gonna buy the game, period. I'm sure millions of others will so I'm completely inconsequential, but I can at least vote with my wallet.

But it's pretty safe to say they won't. Multiplayer "elements" are what they are implementing, MAYBE. It might get cut. The core of the experience will be the single player RPG experience. When CDPR mentioned games as a service, I believe they were referencing titles like Gwent.
 
UhuruNUru;n9857811 said:
I don't need to go any further than Cyberpunk will be a multiplayer game.
Whether it's delivered with a "Games as a service" model, or not doesn't really make any damn difference.
That fact it's multi-player is enough to reduce my interest in this game to zero. So I really don't give a damn how they finance it, I won't play it.

The one thing I would say Is if it is going the multi-player route, it should be entirely multi-player.
I've also no interest in a second rate single player campaign, and if multi-player's the main focus, the campaign's second rate, by definition.

Indeed I've still no interest if the Single player's the main focus, with a second rate Multi-player mode tacked on either.
Both those options split the focus away from the main campaign, and both modes suffer as a result.

So if the focus is going to be as a Multi-player RPG, make that the sole focus, and make it the best damn multi-player RPG you can.
I've no interest in any sort of Multi-player game, some will love it I'm sure, but not me.

If CDPR ever make another single player only RPG, I'll be back, but until that day arrives, there's nothing here for single player RPG gamers, like me.
It was fun, but this looks like it's the time to jump off the CDPR bandwagon, a sad day.

It won't be a "multiplayer game". It will be a singleplayer RPG with "multiplayer elements". We have absolutely no clue what that means.

For the record, I feel very similarly to you about multiplayer titles in general, especially when they are shoehorned into single player games (or vice versa). I just wanted to point out that, as I said in the post just before this, there IS a distinction to be made here, and the multiplayer features might not even make it into the final game.
 

Guest 4149880

Guest
AnklaX;n9856901 said:
All I have to say to CDPR about micro-transactions is: PLEASE DON'T DO THIS TO US.


CDPR would be fools for even touching Micro T's or Loot boxes with the deserved backlash EA is getting from Battle Front 2. Its not smart, the majority of gamers don't want them and that's quite clear at this point. Sales are proof, and the number don't lie. At this point, companies will attempt to slide them under "Is optional" banner so people have reason to debate it but to most people, its all the same. I'm talking to the ones who don't support it, keep up the fight and it will change.

This games as service update is worrisome, not sure what CDPR is aiming for but man its going to be a slippery slope.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
felixsylvaris;n9858131 said:
There are rumours about Game as Service with Cyberpunk.
Let me put it that way, i do not judge, maybe will not buy game, but do not take it personal. There is strong trend for PvE online coop shooter. Like Destiny, Warframe, Anthem. People want to play that. There is no wrong in making games for large audience.
If you want to jump on the train and have own Destiny, some players want that.
It would be great to have single player story experience of some form at some point. Maybe try 2in1. With good SP story, and if you want co-op or pvp multiplayer city in addition and after... maybe that is the way to go.
But i must see the advantage of having stream of cash and ability to expand game over years.
Try to avoid P2W and gambling. It is hard to like the game which cheats you.
If the game is good players will buy fancy hat (cosmetics) just to support game.

It has been a proven fact that if you release a video game for sale if it's a video game that is 100% singleplayer only or has both singleplayer and multiplayer and you release content for free like new quests, new armor, new dungeons, new NPC's, new weapons, new vehicles, etc for free even in multiplayer sales will increase of getting copies sold to more people.

Microtransactions will just make a lot of people actually never purchase your video games ever again.

Look at ZeniMax Media Inc., Bethesda Softworks, and Bethesda Game Studios. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is the last video game I have ever purchased from them on 11.11.11 when they released it for sale for PC on Steam. Now that ZeniMax Media Inc., Bethesda Softworks, and Bethesda Game Studios have released the Creation Club selling microtransactions for 100% singleplayer only video games I do not think I will ever purchase The Elder Scrolls VI, I sure as heck will not be purchasing Fallout 5 I still have not purchased Fallout 4 to this day today still.

The question is does CD Projekt RED want to lose me as a customer for five years straight? Like ZeniMax Media Inc., Bethesda Softworks, and Bethesda Game Studios have so far? What about for ten years? Well I don't think CD Projekt RED will lose me as a customer permanently because I purchase PC versions of video games sold on PC from gog.com, which CD Projekt RED owns.

I am very disappointed CD Projekt RED and gog.com allowed GWENT: The Witcher card video game to be released on gog.com. Instead of selling GWENT: The Witcher card video game on gog.com for something like $20 dollars (USD) and have absolutely no microtransactions.

What is making me very happy right now is that the Belgium government is investigating gambling with loot boxes in video games and from what I read GWENT: The Witcher card video game has kegs you can purchase which has random cards in them. If the Belgium government considers GWENT: The Witcher card video game illegal or whatver because of gambling. CD Projekt RED will have no choice but to remove the kegs from GWENT: The Witcher card video game and maybe sell GWENT: The Witcher card video game for like $30 dollars (USD) or so and hopefully have absolutely no microtransactions.

The only people who spend hundreds of dollars (USD) or thousands of dollars (USD) on mcirotransactions are the very wealthy people and the very rich people. There's a lady in Japan I read about like two years ago who spent $30,000 dollars (USD) on that Candy Crush mobile smart phone video game. Most of us though are not walking money bags we don't have a lot of money to just spend and spend on microtransactions in video games.

I just want CD Projekt RED to develop AAA video games and release them for sale for $50 dollars (USD) or $60 dollars (USD) and then release small content like new armor, new, dungeons, new NPC's, new, quests, new weapons, etc FOR FREE like they did with the sixteen DLC's for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, and then develop and release expansion packs like they did for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt with Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine.

Otherwise if CD Projekt RED and gog.com start adding microtransactions to the video games that they sell I will be done permanently purchasing video games from them ever again. I stopped purchasing PC versions of video games from Steam in 2012 as well.

I will be done purchasing video games for good and possibly quitting my favorite hobby which I have done for over twenty one years so far.
 
UhuruNUru;n9857811 said:
I don't need to go any further than Cyberpunk will be a multiplayer game.
Whether it's delivered with a "Games as a service" model, or not doesn't really make any damn difference.
That fact it's multi-player is enough to reduce my interest in this game to zero. So I really don't give a damn how they finance it, I won't play it.

The one thing I would say Is if it is going the multi-player route, it should be entirely multi-player.
I've also no interest in a second rate single player campaign, and if multi-player's the main focus, the campaign's second rate, by definition.

Indeed I've still no interest if the Single player's the main focus, with a second rate Multi-player mode tacked on either.
Both those options split the focus away from the main campaign, and both modes suffer as a result.

So if the focus is going to be as a Multi-player RPG, make that the sole focus, and make it the best damn multi-player RPG you can.
I've no interest in any sort of Multi-player game, some will love it I'm sure, but not me.

If CDPR ever make another single player only RPG, I'll be back, but until that day arrives, there's nothing here for single player RPG gamers, like me.
It was fun, but this looks like it's the time to jump off the CDPR bandwagon, a sad day.

With all due respect, that's kind of a bizarre way to look at it.

If the game has multiplayer and it's done Grand Theft Auto V style, a.k.a. Grand Theft Online, none of it will impact the main game.

And if you argue that it "splits focus" then I should point out it's got a damn 8 year development cycle so they can AFFORD to.
 
Willowhugger;n9858911 said:
With all due respect, that's kind of a bizarre way to look at it.

If the game has multiplayer and it's done Grand Theft Auto V style, a.k.a. Grand Theft Online, none of it will impact the main game.

And if you argue that it "splits focus" then I should point out it's got a damn 8 year development cycle so they can AFFORD to.
Grand Theft Auto V never got any singleplayer expansion packs released for sale because Rockstar is to busy developing a bunch of microtransactions to release for sale along with Red Dead Redemption 2.

Also Grand Theft Auto V's multiplayer, at least the PC versions is so broken because is uses Peer to Peer (P2P) instead of Dedicated Servers and hackers also run around easily not getting banned or not getting banned easily.

So 2K, Take-Two, and Rockstar don't even care about fixing Grand Theft Auto V's multiplayer because of all of the microtransactions that they are selling, which only the people with a lot of money are really purchasing,
 
Well, here's a few things -

1.CDPR makes single player games and loves to make single player games. Multiplayer aspects aren't going to change that. One company isn't another. It's kind of ridiculous to think that the same command structure that built W 1 to 3 and made gobs of money and great games is going to change that method because...why? Some more money? Risk all that success for one aspect of income? They would have sold out years ago if that was the case.

2. Quitting videogames or CDPR games because they have a feature - or two - that you don't like is an extreme reaction that not only mostly harms you (Fallout 4 sold more than Skyrim, across the same time period for example ) but also takes your dollars out as a vote. DRM free services like GoG -exist- because gamers vote with their dollars.

3. This is still a Cyberpunk forum and a CDPR forum, so please don't turn it into a general bitching-about-other-companies thread, thanks. Yep, EA screwed up. Shocker. Every company has - some because, hey, art has taken a back seat to profit. That's not the case at CDPR yet and there isn't any factual reason to think it is.

So, perspective.
 
Sardukhar;n9858961 said:
Well, here's a few things -

1.CDPR makes single player games and loves to make single player games. Multiplayer aspects aren't going to change that. One company isn't another. It's kind of ridiculous to think that the same command structure that built W 1 to 3 and made gobs of money and great games is going to change that method because...why? Some more money? Risk all that success for one aspect of income? They would have sold out years ago if that was the case.

2. Quitting videogames or CDPR games because they have a feature - or two - that you don't like is an extreme reaction that not only mostly harms you (Fallout 4 sold more than Skyrim, across the same time period for example ) but also takes your dollars out as a vote. DRM free services like GoG -exist- because gamers vote with their dollars.

3. This is still a Cyberpunk forum and a CDPR forum, so please don't turn it into a general bitching-about-other-companies thread, thanks. Yep, EA screwed up. Shocker. Every company has - some because, hey, art has taken a back seat to profit. That's not the case at CDPR yet and there isn't any factual reason to think it is.

So, perspective.
I'm not bitching about what one video game company does and that the other video game company is different.

CD Projekt RED as a business is no different in terms of making money than any other company on this planet. All businesses the more bigger they get and the more money they earn they get more greedier and want to squeeze every single dollar, Euro, and pound from their customers, because human beings just get greedier and greedier.

It's why I have no faith in the human being species and this life is just ending up terrible and terrible with each year, because people just become selfish and don't care about anyone else, but how much money they can earn.
 
Snowflakez;n9857451 said:
The term "Games as a service" sickens me. If it's just in the context of Gwent, I'm fine with it - but otherwise, it sounds way too EA-like for me, and makes me worry.

Honestly, I'm fine with them releasing Games as a service titles in between major releases - titles like Gwent could last them 10-15 years, and make them a lot of money. It would keep them secure and stable, and allow them to fund bigger, more audience-friendly projects. I'm totally OK with this. But if they even think about adding loot boxes or microtransactions into CP2077 or future Witcher titles, they can forget about me as a customer. They are one of the last hold-outs in an industry that shows total disdain for its userbase, and I'll only support them as long as that stays the case.

They can do it all they want in titles like Gwent, though, as I've said. I've played and enjoyed that game, and its F2P, so they already have much more leeway in my book.

CDPR is not EA and Ubisoft. Of course if they are going to put Microtransactions on the Multiplayer , the multiplayer mode has to be free like Gwent just like GTA Online with it’s free DLC Updates. If they are going to do the same as Shadow of War Singleplayer Microtransactions then Goodbye CDPR.

 
What I hate about the comments here is “ not” how they focus on what happened on past interviews and what is In-Game service that relates to titles like Gwent.

Cyberpunk 2077 will clearly have a Singleplayer(For Those Who Worries). That’s already done! We are sold from it! We bought it and We play it like Witcher 3. Now let’s move on CEO Kiciński said:

CEO Kiciński said the game will have a Online Elements. This may include such as a Co-op, PvP&PvE, Open Servers(Not MMO Style or GTA Online Style of Servers), Multiple Game Modes(Daily Challenges and Event Challenge Rewards) etc. He said he will combine this to Singleplayer Game.

Here comes my opinion;
This explains that Cyberpunk 2077 is going to be like GTA 5 and GTA Online with different perspectives and game. GTA 5 doesn’t have anything to do with your GTA Online but CEO Kiciński said the Online Components they gonna add to the game is related to Online one. That’s being said that Online is optional for people who want to play it longer and more active on the game. Do you guys get the point? Online mode will not going to interrupt your Singleplayer experience until you want to. This is what probably CEO Kiciński trying to say.

He wants to make his game more proactive in a long term “service” for like 4-9 years (eg. League of Legends, GTA 5, World of Warcraft, Warframe etc.) without using MMO Style of way to get money.
 
Last edited:
Kicinski didn't say that CP2077 will have online elements. He was speaking of the software game business and talked about a truth that has been true for decades now - online components typically add continuing dollar value to video games.

That was true of Half Life and Counterstrike. That was true of Oblivion and Horse Armour. This is true of Doom and it's many sequels. Team Fortress 2. This is not news.

It's not the same as saying that CP2077 will have an online component ( for sure he didn't say that and wouldn't at this stage) and it's also not true that it would be a for-pay online component.

Will it be implemented in CP2077? Who knows. You can bet it will go through a LOT of thought and testing -if- it is.
 

Guest 4149880

Guest
Sardukhar;n9859321 said:
Kicinski didn't say that CP2077 will have online elements. He was speaking of the software game business and talked about a truth that has been true for decades now - online components typically add continuing dollar value to video games.

That was true of Half Life and Counterstrike. That was true of Oblivion and Horse Armour. This is true of Doom and it's many sequels. Team Fortress 2. This is not news.

It's not the same as saying that CP2077 will have an online component ( for sure he didn't say that and wouldn't at this stage) and it's also not true that it would be a for-pay online component.

Will it be implemented in CP2077? Who knows. You can bet it will go through a LOT of thought and testing -if- it is.

Sources of him saying "Online is necessary, or very recommended if you wish to achieve a long-term success. At some point, we have mentioned that there will be a certain online element related to Cyberpunk."

Of course he doesn't give any details of how anything will be implemented but he does relate online to Cyberpunk as well as business models in current games.
 
While online definitely seems very relevant to make money with games these days, online modes do not necessarily need to have a negative impact on the singleplayer experience. I think it doesn't have to be like GTA, it can also be a seperate mode for example (like Uncharted).

If there really is an online mode in Cyberpunk, I'm not going to worry until I see something more concrete from the game.
 
Oh, I expect some kind of online component in CP2077. It might not even be terrible! Hopes high! Gotta be a first, right? Great SP and good MP? Sure!

But nothing is confirmed - and that's for a reason.

If CDPR changes their mind next month and dumps online - or vehicles, or whatever - because it's not workable or it's workable but not cool, they want the freedom to do that.

Can't really blame them.

The interview you're talking about, here is the summary I found and it is a good example of "broken telephone" communication errors. One leads to another: https://www.resetera.com/threads/cd-projekt-ceo-reveals-new-details-about-future-games.4889/

"Cyberpunk has already been confirmed to have an online component in the past. When Kiciński was asked about multiplayer, he was very coy and he didn't really confirmed it or deny it."

Cyberpunk has -not- been confirmed to have an online component. You'll find they maybe hired multiplayer developers and early talk of a possible MP component, but no one from CDPR saying, "Yeah, MP is in the game, it's confirmed."

It's on the list of things they are interested in doing, but nothing in the game has currently been confirmed by CDPR.
Thus Kicinski said no confirm or deny - standard policy on all Cpunk info.
 

Guest 4149880

Guest
Games with great Sp and great Mp, Cp2077 wouldn't be the first, its just not recognized in gaming because its rare to have both done well. I'm on the side of anticipation for the game to excel at both. Everyone has an assumption of how any of this will be implemented based on their favorite games or standard multiplayer game experiences, I personally want to see CDPR do something so untraditional that really changes the way people even think about multiplayer.

They have a chance here with Cp2077 to bring new features to the forefront of gaming and succeed because they already have a huge audience, and I think it would be a great opportunity to break those walls of static recycled features that seem to have solidified themselves stationary in gaming.
 
Sardukhar;n9859581 said:
Oh, I expect some kind of online component in CP2077. It might not even be terrible! Hopes high! Gotta be a first, right? Great SP and good MP? Sure!


Cyberpunk has -not- been confirmed to have an online component. You'll find they maybe hired multiplayer developers and early talk of a possible MP component, but no one from CDPR saying, "Yeah, MP is in the game, it's confirmed."

It's on the list of things they are interested in doing, but nothing in the game has currently been confirmed by CDPR.
Thus Kicinski said no confirm or deny - standard policy on all Cpunk info.

Actually some form of multiplayer has been confirmed for a long time
 
Here's some clarification for you guys: Cyberpunk 2077 will indeed be a singleplayer-focused RPG, without bulslhit microtransactions.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...77-multiplayer

This was just posted earlier today/yesterday for some people.

EDIT: This does NOT mean there won't be multiplayer elements (as Tarath said, it has already been confirmed) but it simply means that they wont come along with the usual AAA bullshit that we see.
 
I think as an extra resource of income they may implement some soft advertising for real life companies. As an example there may be running news that in 'Tacoma' district of Nightcity the police forces acquired sponsorship say from Ruger. With impact that police will act more softly since more cops in service as opposed to seldom but brute interventions by ED209s :). Or lets say gyms with some sticker on doors may be sponsored by some real life company etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom