Cyberpunk 2077 Removed from the PlayStation Store (and Microsoft's Also Offering Refunds for It, Too!)

[Mark Kaine]

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Wow, the game really looks like that on PS4?

 

[StDragon]

1 hour ago, TylerDurden! said:

not to mention the moment you are sitting there with your teenage daughter modifying your character and it comes time to choose your penis.

Talk about getting hung up on it.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, TylerDurden! said:

It must have been really bad for Sony to be doing something usually unheard of.  I played this on the PC, but the game is clunky... reminds me of trying to play Witcher from 2007 clunky.  I never liked that game either. I think I put a few hours in it before succumbing to boredom.  This is not RDR2 either as far as graphics, but it is a large game, I just do not see what you get for all of the harddrive space it sucks up.

The game objectively looks amazing if you can run it at 4k with raytracing. The only problem is the game is so hard to run at those settings. Thats why although it takes up a large amount of space it seems like the graphics aren't that great when they really are it just no reasonable hardware can run the game at those settings. I mean I have a 2080ti and at 4k with raytracing and with dllss the fps is pretty lack luster but the graphics are not something I have ever seen before from a game. I think the problem with the game is simply it is to hard to run so while it looks amazing if you can crank the settings up it also looks pretty bad if you don't. As far as the game being clunky I have yet to have any significant issues but then again I didn't play it day 1 so maybe it was worse when it first released. Anyways I think the game is actually pretty decent it just wasn't meant to run on low end hardware. 

[SteveGrabowski0]

36 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Wow, the game really looks like that on PS4?

It really does. It can take 5-10 seconds to load in textures sometimes on PS4 / XB1 base consoles, so you get stuck looking at the LOD textures that you're only supposed to see if you're looking at the texture from a long way away.

[PlayStation 2]

I just gotta post this again because it's holding true still:

[SteveGrabowski0]

30 minutes ago, Caroline said:

But... you can give your character a massive penis, or breasts like balloons.... or both.

There is no way I'm not playing as a pre-op Lex Steele trans if this game ever gets fixed.

[RedRound2]

They should've delayed it. But I presume the management wanted it out asap, since there was a couple of nutjobs going as far as giing death threats to the developers for delaying it. Not that Im saying they released it out of fear, but the management probably assumed that delying it again for a year  wouldn't be worth pissing off the diehard and vocal fans. But obviously they should've known better or at least instead do a limited release in PC and then eventually others

[Jet_ski]

Yaaas! I was torn between buying Cyberglitch and waiting for the true PS5 version to be released next year. But I had low expectations because once the devs get paid, 6 months down the road they’ll move on and you won’t get what they promised. Remember how CoD released modern warfare for FREE a year after launch.

 

Now ProjectRed has to actually fix the game and release an actually next gen PS5 version. Or they can just give or become another StarCitizen.

[TylerDurden!]

 

31 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

clunky

It just lacks a feel to it.  I don't know, maybe I could adjust something, but I would even say the original Half Life from 98' had better character movement. 

 

as far as having to have 4k and ray-tracing to make it look good is dumb.  RDR2 has no problem looking crazy good, even on 1080p, there should be no excuses. 

[Spotty]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

what was the reason then? they aren't going to offer refunds to be "the good guy".... 

 I remember it was some law / suit maybe Australia then? 

Yes, Australia. ACCC took Valve to court over steam's refund policy that violated Australian law and won. Valve was fined $3M and required to make refunds available to customers and had to put up a banner on their au website for a year informing anyone who visits steam of the outcome of the case and their rights regarding refunds under Australian consumer law.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/valve-to-pay-3-million-in-penalties-for-misrepresenting-gamers-consumer-guarantee-rights

 

 

Sony was more recently taken to court over the PlayStation store's refund policy and they also lost. Sony was fined $3.5m for not providing refunds.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/sony-to-pay-35-million-penalty-for-misrepresenting-playstation-gamers’-rights

[SteveGrabowski0]

2 hours ago, TylerDurden! said:

It must have been really bad for Sony to be doing something usually unheard of.  I played this on the PC, but the game is clunky... reminds me of trying to play Witcher from 2007 clunky.  I never liked that game either. I think I put a few hours in it before succumbing to boredom.  This is not RDR2 either as far as graphics, but it is a large game, I just do not see what you get for all of the harddrive space it sucks up.

What's funny is RDR 2 has nearly the same recommended spec (i7-4770k + GTX 1060 vs i7-4790 + GTX 1060) but you can actually play RDR2 at 1080p60 on that kind of hardware with some settings tweaks. But Cybercon will rip that cpu to shreds.

[tim0901]

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

what was the reason then? they aren't going to offer refunds to be "the good guy".... 

 I remember it was some law / suit maybe Australia then? 

There was some legal stuff in Australia but I don't think it ever went to court it eventually did and they were fined some pocket change. Sure that ruling forces them to implement it in Australia, but at the end of the day Valve will have done the cost analysis and worked out that introducing the policy globally will probably still work out to be financially in their favor - for example it's better for people who are hesitant about buying a game for whatever reason. They could just as easily have only introduced it in regions where they're required to. No, Valve isn't doing this just to be "the good guy", but sometimes "being the good guy" and "more profit" just so happen to line up.

 

Quote

Also what you quoted is rather unbelievable, as a rule you should always be eligible for a refund if someone literally sells you trash, digital or not... 

The source I linked is an official EU website (.eu domain) so it's about as official of a source as you're gonna get. It may sound dumb - and I kinda agree - but, believe it or not, that's just how the law works here.

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Yes, Australia.

Ah, no idea why I thought it was EU (probably because they're usually also good with consumer rights) thanks for the info. 

 

Sony too, eh. 

 

but still crazy, if it wasn't for Australia there probably wouldn't be any refunds for "digital" games at all... 

[Orangeator]

Well, I know I am in the minority here, but I have been playin the game a lot since launch on my 3080, and the game is absolutely fantastic! The graphics are truly next gen as well. They did a great job, just have to have the hardware to run it. Hardware that currently classified as ununtainiam. 

[tim0901]

49 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

What's funny is RDR 2 has nearly the same recommended spec (i7-4770k + GTX 1060 vs i7-4790 + GTX 1060) but you can actually play RDR2 at 1080p60 on that kind of hardware with some settings tweaks. But Cybercon will rip that cpu to shreds.

It plays pretty ok on my stock 4790K + 1060 6GB. Might not be 60fps (don't have an fps counter to check) but it's perfectly playable (certainly better than the console releases). Runs better than a decent-sized city in Cities Skylines...

 

Edit: had a quick look - in the same area as Linus used in his review I'm getting high 30s to low 40s at medium, whereas at low it's closer to high 40s to mid 50s (with indoors being far closer to 60fps.) But neither is maxing out the CPU - the GPU (and slow af HDD) being pegged at 100% no matter what is definitely the bottleneck here. Even on low it's only hitting ~85% CPU usage. And it's not like it's a stuttering mess either - I can't feel any microstuttering or anything like that. I think an average of 60fps is possible with this CPU, especially with an overclock, but not with a 1060. The game is certainly playable with these specs, the biggest problem is definitely not having it installed on an SSD though.

[Mark Kaine]

9 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

The source I linked is an official EU website

yeah i didn't mean to question your source, just saying I find it unbelievable... 

 

 

[kakik09]

They would've been fine if they just didn't release for the PS4. I really don't understand it. Were they just that greedy that they felt the need to release for platforms that they knew couldn't handle it? Or were they just required to have backwards compatibility with the PS4? 

[WereCatf]

18 minutes ago, kakik09 said:

They would've been fine if they just didn't release for the PS4. I really don't understand it. Were they just that greedy that they felt the need to release for platforms that they knew couldn't handle it? Or were they just required to have backwards compatibility with the PS4? 

When in doubt, always blame the executives and greed.

[WereCatf]

2 hours ago, Caroline said:

On every platform apparently, it's either that or 25FPS even with a 2070

There is enough of a shitshow surrounding Cyberpunk as-is that there's no need to exaggerate things like this. The game runs fine at ~60FPS on my 1080, for example, while also looking good. No need for a 2070 and no 25FPS, either, on PC.

[tim0901]

24 minutes ago, kakik09 said:

Were they just that greedy that they felt the need to release for platforms that they knew couldn't handle it?

It was meant to release back in April - we didn't even get our first look at the PS5 until June. Given their original release date, it makes perfect sense to release for the PS4 and Xbone. Releasing for PC and going "lol consoles don't get it till December (and even then only the expensive new ones)" would've been a huge middle finger given this is (unless I'm seriously forgetting something) the most anticipated launch of the year, and it's not like they would have wanted to sit around on a finished game for 8 months to release them concurrently either (not that they ended up finishing by then anyway ofc).

 

I imagine they were hoping for something similar to how GTA5 performed on the 360/PS3: fine to play, but with the next gen version looking and performing far better.

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 hour ago, tim0901 said:

It plays pretty ok on my stock 4790K + 1060 6GB. Might not be 60fps (don't have an fps counter to check) but it's perfectly playable (certainly better than the console releases). Runs better than a decent-sized city in Cities Skylines...

 

Edit: had a quick look - in the same area as Linus used in his review I'm getting high 30s to low 40s at medium, whereas at low it's closer to high 40s to mid 50s (with indoors being far closer to 60fps.) But neither is maxing out the CPU - the GPU (and slow af HDD) being pegged at 100% no matter what is definitely the bottleneck here. Even on low it's only hitting ~85% CPU usage. And it's not like it's a stuttering mess either - I can't feel any microstuttering or anything like that. I think an average of 60fps is possible with this CPU, especially with an overclock, but not with a 1060. The game is certainly playable with these specs, the biggest problem is definitely not having it installed on an SSD though.

I was watching a stream with a guy running an R3 3100 and GTX 1650 Super at 720p medium on 1.03 (Santiago Santiago) and the gpu was like at 50-70% gpu load with framerate in the 30s and 40s walking around the city. And R3 3100 generally beats an overclocked 4790k by a bit. Plus the recommended spec was the 4790, which is 400 MHz slower than the stock 4790k.

[CarlBar]

A youtuber i watch got the core of it right imo. They put all the performance focus on the PC side come optimisation time. And it shows. The PC experiance whilst rough around the edges is by all accounts otherwise very workable. The consoles version is a disaster though by all accounts

 

Also despite how this has blown up, compared to NMS or worse FO76 this is a mild screwup. It's just getting a lot more negativity because it's such a well known developer.

[Mark Kaine]

10 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

mild screwup

 

 

 

 

NMS wasn't even that bad, it just wasn't what it was hyped up to be... (unsurprisingly) 

[D13H4RD]

Remember, no preorders 

[PlayStation 2]

17 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

A youtuber i watch got the core of it right imo. They put all the performance focus on the PC side come optimisation time. And it shows. The PC experiance whilst rough around the edges is by all accounts otherwise very workable. The consoles version is a disaster though by all accounts

 

Also despite how this has blown up, compared to NMS or worse FO76 this is a mild screwup. It's just getting a lot more negativity because it's such a well known developer.

No Man's Sky was feature-incomplete and I still won't forgive Hello Games for cocking its launch up that badly. But it was at least remotely competent on consoles at launch. I cannot say the same for Cyberpunk at all.

Fallout 76 was a disaster on launch. It's still a fucking disaster like three years after it dropped. There's no salvaging that. Fallout 76 is probably the biggest testament to not bolting on tons of features onto an old game engine, at least if you never learned from trying to load 200 mods in Garry's Mod or tons of mods for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

 

CDPR doesn't deserve to be let off the hook at all here. Everyone complains about buggy ass games and when the time comes to actually attack a buggy ass game, people actually want to defend it.