Cyberpunk 2077 - multiplayer mode will have micropayments

[Senzelian]

On 11/25/2019 at 7:09 PM, Derangel said:

There is no correlation between game price and microtransactions.

There definitely is.

It affects for example time and amount of rebates for the game or prices of special packages.

[xAcid9]

13 minutes ago, realshmalex said:

I’d rather watch a 30sec video(ad) instead of paying for microstfu... 

or...  you don't need to do any of those and still able to play/enjoy the game. 

 

 

[KnoT]

On 11/25/2019 at 11:21 PM, Sauron said:

Uh... no, it will be part of the game. This is some high level mental gymnastics you're doing just to defend a company.

How do you know that it's going to be a part o the core game ? How did they lied ? Did you even read the article? Or did you just stopped on a title of this post ? This is the real mental gymnastics to attack ppl while having zero knowledge on the topic and being to lazy to even read the article.

[Mark Kaine]

On 12/2/2019 at 10:32 AM, xAcid9 said:

or...  you don't need to do any of those and still able to play/enjoy the game. 

Depends. I'm usually a collector of all in-game items - especially if I really like the game and paying out of my nose to get them kinda defeats the purpose,  feels like a ripoff (well, because it usually is of course) and often those items are of worse quality than what you'd get in other games for *free*.

 

 

Also, even if you personally don't care, by simply playing a game with mtx (especially when you actually paid money for that game) you're inevitably supporting these practices and that's not something I want to do. 

 

 

I did in the past tbh,  but not anymore it literally kills the fun for me and the reason I'm playing games,  not to mention it'd cost me a lot of money in the long run. 

 

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, KnoT said:

How do you know that it's going to be a part o the core game ? How did they lied ? Did you even read the article? Or did you just stopped on a title of this post ? This is the real mental gymnastics to attack ppl while having zero knowledge on the topic and being to lazy to even read the article.

You're the one who hasn't bothered reading the comment chain they responded to. If you had you'd know I didn't say they lied, I said they would have lied if they added microtransactions with the multiplayer. I know, I know, basic reading is hard. Gotta act real smug about it when you think it's the other person who got it wrong though.

 

But hey, don't let that get in the way of your boot licking for your favorite corporation. Imagine even thinking that a large for-profit endeavor could ever contradict a tweet they made in the past, am I right? I must be a damn conspiracy theorist for even entertaining that idea. You do you my friend, thinking is for losers.

[Jito463]

On 11/24/2019 at 3:25 PM, Trik'Stari said:

Am I the only one who could not care less about multiplayer for this game?

I have literally zero interest.  I can almost count on one hand the number of multiplayer games I've played in all my years, including MMO's.

On 11/24/2019 at 3:40 PM, handymanshandle said:

Do I hear "overhyped game that'll never live up to its hype and will actually be dog****?"

On 11/25/2019 at 6:52 AM, Tegos said:

Whoa calm down there buddy this isn't Bethesda we're talking about

Personally, I'd have gone with "Daikatana".  I doubt any game could ever match the undeserved hype that it generated, not even Fallout 76.

On 11/25/2019 at 12:53 PM, Princess Luna said:

I don't care since I'll only play the single player portion of the game, just like I only played the single player portion of GTA IV, GTA V, Red Dead Redemption 2, Titanfall 2, every CoD, every Battlefield, Forza Horizon, Hitman, AC and sooooo on.

Same here, single player only for me.  If it can't be played single player, without having to log into their servers, then they don't get my money.

[EldritchMoose]

On 11/25/2019 at 9:55 AM, LeSheen said:

I really dislike this trend of adding the micro transactions later on. In my opinion it's just a dirty way to avoid the critics. Hardly any reviewer adjusts his review/score after a month or so after release.

This is what's pissing me off about this news - it's not the fact that they added microtransactions, but rather the fact that they lied about not adding them in the first place. They coast on the good PR of not having microtransactions for their big hyped game and then turn around months later and flat out admit that they lied.

 

Microtransactions have a place in exactly one type of game: Free-to-play games which don't have any other monetization model. This is a full-price release, we're expected to put up the industry standard MSRP of €60 in order to play it, and then they have the gall to turn around and all but say that they need additional money to support the game? Fuck that noise!

 

I don't care if they would be "just cosmetic" because any word out of CDPR's mouth on the subject is now suspect. They lied before, what's stopping them from turning around a few months in and suddenly "deciding" to sell "time savers" as well? I mean, it's not like this would be the first time a massively hyped game set in a dystopian future setting saw that thing happen in the past few months...

 

I was already going to wait to buy this thing pending initial reviews, but this does not bode well. I hope I'm being too cynical about it.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, EldritchMoose said:

This is what's pissing me off about this news - it's not the fact that they added microtransactions, but rather the fact that they lied about not adding them in the first place. They coast on the good PR of not having microtransactions for their big hyped game and then turn around months later and flat out admit that they lied.

Just to be accurate, they never actually said microtransactions.  They said they were considering monetization (specifically in regards to multiplayer), but that's not necessarily the same thing.

1 hour ago, EldritchMoose said:

Microtransactions have a place in exactly one type of game: Free-to-play games which don't have any other monetization model. This is a full-price release, we're expected to put up the industry standard MSRP of €60 in order to play it, and then they have the gall to turn around and all but say that they need additional money to support the game?

If you had bothered to read the thread before jumping in, you would have discovered that the multiplayer is going to be a separate component, shipped separately from the base single player game.  And just to be clear yet again, I'm not defending anything (because right now, there's nothing confirmed to defend anyway), I'm just clarifying the facts.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

I have literally zero interest.  I can almost count on one hand the number of multiplayer games I've played in all my years, including MMO's.

Personally, I'd have gone with "Daikatana".  I doubt any game could ever match the undeserved hype that it generated, not even Fallout 76.

Same here, single player only for me.  If it can't be played single player, without having to log into their servers, then they don't get my money.

I said it when Halo 2 got popular for Multiplayer.

 

Multiplayer will, and has, ruined the gaming industry. It's shallow, monetized bullshit that only lasts as long as the publishers think they can excessively monetize the product.

 

Way back when, you got a good game with good story and it provided memories that might last your life, now you get trash like Pubg, Overwatch, and Fortnite, which are shallow, short lived trash that will eventually be replaced and barely remembered.

 

The only game I can think of that really stands out for multiplayer, is BFBC2, simply because it was just so wildly different from every other multiplayer game out there. It had a hilarious story, but the multiplayer was even more comical in how chaotic and ridiculous it was. The tactics that win became completely ridiculous.

[Jito463]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Multiplayer will, and has, ruined the gaming industry. It's shallow, monetized bull that only lasts as long as the publishers think they can excessively monetize the product.

Peer-to-peer multiplayer (like with the Divinity: Original Sin series) is fine, even though I don't have any interest in that, either.  I do agree that most multiplayer games/components are pretty worthless.  The few I have played that weren't MMO's, I merely played casually and didn't even try to compete.  They simply lack any appeal for me.  As for the MMO's I played, I pretty much treated them like a single player game anyway.  I almost never grouped with others, and when I did it was only briefly.

 

I get that for some people it's pretty much their only social interactions with others, but that's just not healthy.  However, that's straying into a whole other can of worms.

[Trik'Stari]

3 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Peer-to-peer multiplayer (like with the Divinity: Original Sin series) is fine, even though I don't have any interest in that, either.  I do agree that most multiplayer games/components are pretty worthless.  The few I have played that weren't MMO's, I merely played casually and didn't even try to compete.  They simply lack any appeal for me.  As for the MMO's I played, I pretty much treated them like a single player game anyway.  I almost never grouped with others, and when I did it was only briefly.

 

I get that for some people it's pretty much their only social interactions with others, but that's just not healthy.  However, that's straying into a whole other can of worms.

The bigger problem I see is that many younger kids (I'm talking early 20's, and I'm only about to hit 31) don't see any value in a game unless it has active multiplayer with microtransactions.

 

Seriously, I know a kid who built a $1500 gaming PC just to play fucking overwatch. and ONLY overwatch. He has no interest in any other games, skyrim, battlefield, CoD, Stardew Valley, Fallout, etc.

 

Just overwatch, ONLY overwatch. And he gets seriously defensive when you point that that building a $1500 gaming PC to play overwatch is like buying a Ferrari and driving 5 miles under the speed limit, in the left hand lane.

 

Like, he gets SERIOUSLY butthurt about it.

[PurplDrank]

On 11/24/2019 at 12:46 PM, RejZoR said:

I have no issues with microtransactions when they are done right like in following games:

- Overwatch (only cosmetics, while cool, they are non essential and do not affect gameplay)

- Killing Floor 2 (only cosmetics, while cool, they are non essential and do not affect gameplay)

- CS:GO (only cosmetics, while mostly ugly lol, they are non essential and do not affect gameplay)

- Natural Selection 2 (only cosmetics, while cool, they are non essential and do not affect gameplay)

 

I've bought some cosmetic items from some of these games at some point. Either because they looked cool or because I wanted to support developers of those games. That especially applies to Killing Floor 2 and Natural Selection 2. Developers of these two games continue to release tons of totally free content for the owners of the base game and it only feels right if you donate some and get a cosmetic as a thank you in return. Gameplay is entirely unaffected as a result, I still play the same as someone who hasn't bought any cosmetics at all.

 

If CDPR adds microtransactions in shape of new skins, outfits, accessories and stuff, I'm all for it. They are one of the most honest developers I know and if they go down the path of cosmetics only microtransactions, I'm all for it. Absolutely no issues there and if they'll offer cool stuff, chances are, I might chip in a € here and there. I like cool looking cosmetics if they aren't ridiculously priced and if that means additional support for the developer, it's fine.

totally agree with this guy. nothing wrong with micros as long as it doesnt affect gameplay.

 

Also, i didnt know people still played natural selection 2

[Trik'Stari]

On 11/24/2019 at 3:46 PM, RejZoR said:

I have no issues with microtransactions when they are done right like in following games:

- Overwatch (only cosmetics, while cool, they are non essential and do not affect gameplay)

- Killing Floor 2 (only cosmetics, while cool, they are non essential and do not affect gameplay)

- CS:GO (only cosmetics, while mostly ugly lol, they are non essential and do not affect gameplay)

- Natural Selection 2 (only cosmetics, while cool, they are non essential and do not affect gameplay)

 

I've bought some cosmetic items from some of these games at some point. Either because they looked cool or because I wanted to support developers of those games. That especially applies to Killing Floor 2 and Natural Selection 2. Developers of these two games continue to release tons of totally free content for the owners of the base game and it only feels right if you donate some and get a cosmetic as a thank you in return. Gameplay is entirely unaffected as a result, I still play the same as someone who hasn't bought any cosmetics at all.

 

If CDPR adds microtransactions in shape of new skins, outfits, accessories and stuff, I'm all for it. They are one of the most honest developers I know and if they go down the path of cosmetics only microtransactions, I'm all for it. Absolutely no issues there and if they'll offer cool stuff, chances are, I might chip in a € here and there. I like cool looking cosmetics if they aren't ridiculously priced and if that means additional support for the developer, it's fine.

Overwatch and CS:GO are EVERYTHING wrong with modern gaming, and have largely contributed to the complete an utter devaluation of modern big game titles.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

Seriously, I know a kid who built a $1500 gaming PC just to play overwatch. and ONLY overwatch. He has no interest in any other games, skyrim, battlefield, CoD, Stardew Valley, Fallout, etc.

I just had a couple come into our store Saturday, and bought two ~$2,000 computers (one slightly higher, one just under) solely to play WoW.  It's wasteful in my opinion, but it's their money.  At least they know they won't need to upgrade again (barring hardware failures) for many years to come.

[LeSheen]

7 hours ago, Jito463 said:

If you had bothered to read the thread before jumping in, you would have discovered that the multiplayer is going to be a separate component, shipped separately from the base single player game.  And just to be clear yet again, I'm not defending anything (because right now, there's nothing confirmed to defend anyway), I'm just clarifying the facts.

I don't know how to feel about this. In my opinion if you leave a mode out until later on then you are selling an incomplete game. Once again dodging the initial reviews. In my opinion it would better be released as a standalone mode/game. 

 

One recent example would be fortnite.

[WereCatf]

18 minutes ago, LeSheen said:

In my opinion it would better be released as a standalone mode/game.

It IS a standalone-game!

[LeSheen]

1 hour ago, WereCatf said:

It IS a standalone-game!

That's not clear at all if you read the op's post. I have not read the article either since it's in polish. My reactions are based on the op.

[WereCatf]

41 minutes ago, LeSheen said:

That's not clear at all if you read the op's post. I have not read the article either since it's in polish. My reactions are based on the op.

Yeah, but it's been said a billion times already in the comments: there's the single-player Cyberpunk which is just a one-time purchase and then there's the entirely separate Cyberpunk-themed multiplayer-game. You don't get access to the multiplayer-game by bying the single-player game, it's not tied into it, all the talk about monetization is literally only about the multiplayer-game.

[Jito463]

4 hours ago, WereCatf said:

It IS a standalone-game!

Technically, we don't know that yet.  It may well be, but nothing has been announced as definitive at this time.

[RejZoR]

11 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Overwatch and CS:GO are EVERYTHING wrong with modern gaming, and have largely contributed to the complete an utter devaluation of modern big game titles.

Erm, no. Can't help if people are stupid and buy all the shit, but the method they used is acceptable. You can buy all the stuff via silly loot boxes or just play the thing and earn exactly the same ones that way. Not having certain skins does not affect your ability to play or your effectiveness of play.

[RejZoR]

11 hours ago, PurplDrank said:

totally agree with this guy. nothing wrong with micros as long as it doesnt affect gameplay.

 

Also, i didnt know people still played natural selection 2

I used to play Natural Selection 2 a lot. Haven't played it for quite a while, but is still one of best games I've played ever. The concept is insane and game as such is really complex and meant for people with acquired taste in strategy shooters. NS2:Combat however, deathmatch focused game however is basically dead. There used to be a group of people who played it every sunday, but I'm not sure if they are still going.

 

Given they still update it and release these updates, it looks like there is still interest.

[Trik'Stari]

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Erm, no. Can't help if people are stupid and buy all the shit, but the method they used is acceptable. You can buy all the stuff via silly loot boxes or just play the thing and earn exactly the same ones that way. Not having certain skins does not affect your ability to play or your effectiveness of play.

I should be more clear,

 

What those games did, was to make big budget mainstream games, as a whole, completely fucking shallow.

 

Games have, an inherent ability to be absolutely incredible medium for story telling. Not only in strength of emotional reaction but in terms of the depth of what is conveyed. If you want proof of this, go play Knights of The Old Republic a few times. I'm currently watching a long format video on the philosophy of one of the major characters of the second game, and I honestly forgot how insanely good the writing is.

 

I honestly cannot think of a single game SINCE KOTOR 1 and 2 that had writing even remotely that good. Not even Fallout New Vegas was that well written.

 

 

I feel justified in saying that if you haven't played KOTOR 1 and 2 at least twice each, you know nothing about the depth of the Star Wars universe.

 

And now, modern games are just what skin you use, how well you play, what hero you "main". It's fucking shallow bullshit. Just completely shallow.

[Lathlaer]

21 hours ago, WereCatf said:

Yeah, but it's been said a billion times already in the comments: there's the single-player Cyberpunk which is just a one-time purchase and then there's the entirely separate Cyberpunk-themed multiplayer-game. You don't get access to the multiplayer-game by bying the single-player game, it's not tied into it, all the talk about monetization is literally only about the multiplayer-game.

Hmm, I always thought about it more like Mass Effect 3 or ME:Andromeda multiplayer. As in, yes, the multiplayer component is separate but you don't buy another game to access it (and you don't download the launcher for it either) - you access it from the main game.

[Quadriplegic]

I'm fine with well done MTX in free 2 play games, but MTX in paid, hyped AAA titles? Get the hell out of here with your nonsense. 

If charging 100% of price for less than 100% of content isn't a scam, I don't know what is. And that applies to both singleplayer and multiplayer titles.

[WereCatf]

5 minutes ago, Quadriplegic said:

I'm fine with well done MTX in free 2 play games, but MTX in paid, hyped AAA titles? Get the hell out of here with your nonsense.

Or maybe just calm down, read the comments and realize that this isn't what's happening.