Playing Cyberpunk 2077 isn’t going well for last gen console owners

[IkeaGnome]

I think one thing people are missing with this. Take the PS4 and PS4 pro. 2013 and 2016 release dates. Even going with a $750 pc build from the time how would you expect the game to run? Not well. I'm not blaming the systems by any means. More so the people who expect too much. "We want the latest and greatest and best graphics. And ray tracing!" Then "Why won't this run on a machine that costs $500 6 years ago!!!!"

Granted, the game isn't running well on new hardware either. Look at the FPS of a 3080 or 3090 build. However, turn off RT and turn on DLSS and look at the boost they get. I'm not really defending the developers here. This much time for a game that runs this poorly? That's sad. It's been in development for what, 7 years? It should have been targeted at last gen consoles. It almost seems like it was, and then at the last minute they decided to add RT and all the stuff to take advantage of the new hardware and fulfill the expectations that people wanted.

2013

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2013/06/23/return-of-the-750-gaming-pc-build-now-with-blu-ray-modular-psu-double-the-ssd-storage/?sh=5bff6c0865da

2016

https://techbuyersguru.com/750-budget-gaming-pc-build-may-2016

TLDR: Be mindful of expectations for stuff and what you plan to run it on.

[Arika]

 

ouch

[Aereldor]

Hmm, wonder how this game does on a GTX 770 and an i5 4690k, both 2013 chips. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Aereldor said:

Hmm, wonder how this game does on a GTX 770 and an i5 4690k, both 2013 chips. 

720p 30fps probably

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQwZg1CmxSk

 

[Aereldor]

43 minutes ago, Medicate said:

720p 30fps probably

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQwZg1CmxSk

 

Hmm, better than the PS4 it seems. Even the 'console killer' PC from 2014 would probably do okay... Haswell i3 and a 750 Ti, 720p at 70% resolution scale

[Delicieuxz]

4 hours ago, Arika S said:

 

ouch

Those who sold their stocks are probably kicking themselves for doing so.

 

Cyberpunk 2077 Had 8 Million Pre-Orders, 59% of Which Were on PC (Biggest PC Launch Ever)

 

Cyberpunk 2077 has already recouped its development costs, CD Projekt says

 

After dipping to a low of 72% shortly after launching, the Steam review score for CP 2077 is now at 79% positive. It will probably reach 80% / Very Positive in another few hours, and then keep climbing from there. Red Dead Redemption 2 initially had a Mixed Steam review score, and It took RDR2 eight months and many patches following its PC release to reach a Steam score of 80% / Very Positive.

 

The first gamer reviews after the launch of a game are from people who have issues with the game that interfere with their enjoyment. The people not having serious issues wait to play the game before leaving a review of their experience.

[ravenshrike]

On 12/10/2020 at 2:16 PM, RejZoR said:

People seriously believe last gen console is going to smoothly run a next gen title at good visual quality? LMAO

The Pro runs it perfectly fine if you have an external SSD. Crashes about once every 6 hours but the autosave are often enough it is not an issue.

[RejZoR]

Good to hear they have already covered all the expenses for this game. This means they can now focus on improving it without any worries and ensuring more people will buy it. Coz everything from now on is pure profit with minor expenses for people working on fixing things.

 

From the looks of it, when I'll be playing it sometime next year when I finally get the damn graphic card, it'll probably be much better experience.

[jagdtigger]

12 hours ago, Aereldor said:

Hmm, wonder how this game does on a GTX 770 and an i5 4690k, both 2013 chips. 

For me 4670k@4.5 GHz+Vega64 resulted in ~19 FPS...... (GPU maxed out, CPU  ~85%)

/EDIT
At 4k ultra.....

Edited December 12, 2020 by jagdtigger

[CTR640]

Why has the game been overhyped so much? Is it because of the company who developed the The Witcher 3? Or because the company has good-will?

[Aereldor]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

For me 4670k@4.5 GHz+Vega64 resulted in ~19 FPS...... (GPU maxed out, CPU  ~85%)

What resolution and what settings, scaling on or off? I'm talking lowest, 720p 30fps @75% resolution scaling. Game runs on a 3200G with those settings...

[jagdtigger]

24 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

What resolution and what settings, scaling on or off? I'm talking lowest, 720p 30fps @75% resolution scaling. Game runs on a 3200G with those settings...

Its in the edit, 4k ultra. No scaling since i have an amd gpu. Same place what Linus shows in its video. Ill probably step down to 1440p, or even FHD if need be.

[Aereldor]

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Its in the edit, 4k ultra. No scaling since i have an amd gpu. Same place what Linus shows in its video. Ill probably step down to 1440p, or even FHD if need be.

TBH if you use 80 or even 70% resolution and turn on the AMD sharpening filter, it's pretty close to native 4k. I ran flight simulator at 4k medium 75% with the sharpening filter, looked like native 4k, literally twice the frames

[jagdtigger]

Ill try it tomorrow...

[Moonzy]

the memes are legendary tho

 

 

can anyone on ps4 confirm if this is edited or true? lmao

[Jet_ski]

27 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

the memes are legendary tho

 

 

can anyone on ps4 confirm if this is edited or true? lmao

Damn even the devs know  

[MadyTehWolfie]

I'm playing it maxed out with dlss on quality mode at around 60fps at 3440x1440p. Same fps at 4k minus ray tracing. Better performance then the witcher 3 at release with the 780ti I had. Think people forgot how hard witcher 3 was to run at release. Took the 980ti to run it at 1440p maxed out 60 fps locked. Figure it needs more polish. It's more then playable on my pc but not everyone has a 3090. Wish they supported sli for it. Cheaper to buy two 2080ti then it is to buy a 3090 right now 

[dilpickle]

On 12/12/2020 at 12:23 PM, CTR640 said:

Why has the game been overhyped so much? Is it because of the company who developed the The Witcher 3? Or because the company has good-will?

All of the above. They were one of the "good guy" gaming companies. The game had a very lengthy development time and the delays just brought even more attention to it. It ended up becoming a meme and it just snowballed from there.

 

A lot of that goodwill is evaporating after this debacle.

[SteveGrabowski0]

On 12/10/2020 at 6:39 PM, Hymenopus_Coronatus said:

Honestly tho, not surprised. The minimum specs call for a GTX 780 right? These consoles roughly match a GTX 660 Ti or 680 if I'm not mistaken. (I might be mistaken tho, I've heard a lot of conflicting info on this)

More like HD 7850 I think

[SteveGrabowski0]

On 12/10/2020 at 8:40 PM, handymanshandle said:

To be completely fair, CDPR was probably getting this game onto the PS4 and Xbox One regardless. This game would've been a swan song for those consoles had it been in good shape for its release. 

I'm actually amazed at how dreadfully it runs. And how fucking horrible it looks. GTA V on PS3 and Xbox 360 looked more consistent and better than this. Cyberpunk looks super blurry on the base machines.

I'm not that amazed honestly. When I saw Ryzen 3 3100 could only do ~40 fps walking around the city after the Day 1 patch it became pretty clear this would be a total clusterfuck on the Jaguar cores designed for mobile that are in all versions of PS4 / XBox One. Usually PS4 games will look alright, they'll just play at 1080p30 (or occasionally 900p30) at settings that a decent 4C/8T cpu + GTX 1070 could run 60 fps, so it doesn't surprise me at all seeing this game run 15-20 fps on the consoles when it's 30-40 fps on PC with a 4C/8T chip and a 1070.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I'm not that amazed honestly. When I saw Ryzen 3 3100 could only do ~40 fps walking around the city after the Day 1 patch it became pretty clear this would be a total clusterfuck on the Jaguar cores designed for mobile that are in all versions of PS4 / XBox One. Usually PS4 games will look alright, they'll just play at 1080p30 (or occasionally 900p30) at settings that a decent 4C/8T cpu + GTX 1070 could run 60 fps, so it doesn't surprise me at all seeing this game run 15-20 fps on the consoles when it's 30-40 fps on PC with a 4C/8T chip and a 1070.

People keep forgetting that the GPU isn't everything - CP2077 needs a decent CPU, and what the PS4 and Xbone have is complete shit.

[Mark Kaine]

On 12/12/2020 at 7:23 PM, CTR640 said:

Why has the game been overhyped so much? Is it because of the company who developed the The Witcher 3? Or because the company has good-will?

Frankly, I don't know, I also don't know why the Witcher was popular... it looks so boring, and not impressive at all, yet it's considered "demanding". Similar goes for CP, mostly a mash of low poly textures, cringe animations, bugs everywhere and a complete "RGB" exuberance... 

 

Which is for now my theory, PC gamers just love the RGB, the cringe meme gameplay is just a bonus... 

 

 

 

 

[Belgarathian]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

Frankly, I don't know, I also don't know why the Witcher was popular... it looks so boring, and not impressive at all, yet it's considered "demanding". Similar goes for CP, mostly a mash of low poly textures, cringe animations, bugs everywhere and a complete "RGB" exuberance... 

 

Which is for now my theory, PC gamers just love the RGB, the cringe meme gameplay is just a bonus... 

 

 

 

 

While everyone enjoys different games for different reasons, I have to say that Witcher 3 is by far the best RPG that I've played to date. The story is diverse, detailed, and enthralling, and the graphics are spectacular IMO.

 

I did find that when I first played it the first 10 or so levels were the hardest and it took a few hours and a youtube video to get into, but once I got going I couldn't stop.

 

I still remember loading into the world and getting curb stomped by the first monster I came across. And the werewolf. 

[Mark Kaine]

10 minutes ago, Belgarathian said:

While everyone enjoys different games

well yeah no question. 

 

10 minutes ago, Belgarathian said:

The story is diverse, detailed, and enthralling

obviously I can't judge this but I take your word for it - and I acknowledge that can actually be a (good) reason why people like a game. 

 

10 minutes ago, Belgarathian said:

the graphics are spectacular IMO.

Imo from screen shots I've seen its just weirdly colorful and oversaturated, but that is also admittedly a question of different tastes perhaps, what I really meant, and I count this as part of the "graphics package" is the stiff animations, it's just overall really unimmersive to me. I played a bit of Witcher 2, and had similar issues there, it just felt stiff and clunky (for lack of a better word) 

 

ironically I liked the boss fight mechanics, imo the whole game should have been like that without any fluff or much "story" elements... 

 

to me a story is just background fluff to drive the gameplay, as soon a story takes itself to serious or important I stop caring about it... 

 

That doesn't mean there should be no "story driven" games, just that it's not for me. 

[Mooshi]

You mean a game released too early to appease the complaining masses on underpowered hardware looks bad? You don't say!