Did they develop it for PC first, and then port to consoles? What's up?

I fully support their decision to delay the game until it's ready, and not release it in an unfinished state, only to patch it later.

It'd be awfully naive to think that they'd just ignore consoles. Regardless of whether they knew what they were getting into or not, issues come up. No game development is ever going to be a perfect affair with absolutely no issues. The Witcher isn't CyberPunk; you can learn from the last title, but that doesn't mean nothing else is going to come up.

@TopHatProductions115 Oh man I sure hope so. They also claimed they needed to make sure other things were working properly, as it's a pretty complex game.

@dizmo My criticism here is they planned on releasing CyberPunk 2077 on PS4 and XB1, consoles they've worked on to a measure of competency given that they have another title that's obviously non-trivial on there.

To say that they're delaying the game because they somehow now realize that the PS4 and XB1 are not powerful enough perplexes me. They should be aware of how powerful the systems are and what limitations they're up against from the start. And really, they should be developing around the lowest specification they're willing to support. Developing high and scaling low is asking for headache and trouble down the road.

I agree, they need to get their heads out of their asses @Mira Yurizaki

Right. And I'm saying that it's a different game, with different issues, so you can't just assume because they made a similar game before that it'll be breezy. It's not the same thing. I'd much rather them build a game to perform at it's best, and then spec it down instead of the other way around. No idea why you'd want them to make the game the other way around.

right. Although, id rather wait longer than sooner to get a game that isn't broken and is fun to play. Although i don't believe this is for changes to story as much as platform issues. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now, do to their past title, but they really should of stradegized better then they did.

@dizmo Whether or not a game's developers ultimate ambitions are for a game is irrespective of how much they know about the system they're targeting. If they didn't learn anything about the system, which for all intents and purposes didn't change, when developing an application on it, then I don't know what to say other than they're incompetent in that regard.

Also "performing at its best" would require you to develop from the baseline requirements anyway, because if it performs really fast on lower end hardware, it's going to perform even better on higher end hardware. Developing on lower end specifications first doesn't mean the game is going to suffer. Look at Cry Engine 3. It's designed to work on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and yet Crysis 3 was a beast to run at maximum quality. Or heck, we could look at id Tech 6, designed to run at 1080p 60 FPS on the OG PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, but you can easily achieve 200+ FPS with maximum detail on a PC.

If you set your baselines on higher-end hardware... well uh, your baseline is for the higher-end hardware. Maybe by some fluke going lower-end in hardware spec won't really hurt the base performance goals that were set, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Oh I see. So you expect them to know how a new engine is going to work on a platform they haven't used it on. Got it.

Sure, but if you're aiming at low end hardware there are features you simply aren't going to work that hard to implement, as they won't work. I'd still rather them have it set at a higher level than last gen consoles.