It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
fishbaits: Multiplayer is strategically important, playing online is strategically important
Wonderful. Now CDPR sounds like your run-of-the-mill Ubisoft or Electronic Arts press release.

"Dear Investors: We know it's shit, we'll make it shit, the whole games as a service shebang, we don't WANT to do it, it's not like any designer said it would be a cool idea, but it works big time for the biggies so management said do it".

And of course Ubisoft is fucking it up in exactly the same way for Beyond Good & Evil 2.

At this point, all those bladerunnery dystopian futures look mighty real to me.

Hey, investors, can't you tell CDPR that this sucks?
Post edited November 14, 2017 by Vainamoinen
At some point, we have mentioned that there will be a certain online element related to Cyberpunk
Gwent Cyberpunk 2077 confirmed, yay!
As long as it has a meaningful single-player campaign that doesn't require me to be online, I am fine. If not, then I probably won't buy the game, unless I will consider it must-have. I would have been actually surprised if the game wouldn't have had any online components at all, in this day and age.

I am more interested to know what this means for a possible Steam version? Will Cyberpunk be Galaxy-only (no Steam version), or will the Steam version require one to create and use also a Galaxy account/client, or will they really go through the trouble of creating the same online components (multiplayer, social hub, whatever) separately for the Galaxy and Steam versions?
Post edited November 14, 2017 by timppu
avatar
fishbaits: When he was later asked about online multiplayer, Kicinski mentioned that it would be a good way for the team to meet market standards, he even calls it "necessary":
I have a bad feeling about this.
avatar
andysheets1975: That's okay. I don't use the online components of Dark Souls or Dragon's Dogma, either.
avatar
MadalinStroe: How do you do that? As far as I know in Dark Souls you are invaded by other players. There are no opt-out solutions. And in Dragon's Dogma case, the multiplayer component is that the NPCs you can recruit, are copies of random players characters, which makes them stronger than scripted NPCs.
Can't you just play the games while offline? In that case, how could other players invade your single-player gaming session? Or does the Steam version of those games require you to be online all the time, also during single-player? Steam offline-mode is disabled for them?

Dragon's Dogma is also on GOG now, and I assume I can play it also without being connected to internet at all. Maybe I'll test that later today, installing it from the offline installers.
Post edited November 14, 2017 by timppu
I am suprised. Single offline player coming in the future, promise.
avatar
MadalinStroe: How do you do that? As far as I know in Dark Souls you are invaded by other players. There are no opt-out solutions.
avatar
timppu: Can't you just play the games while offline? In that case, how could other players invade your single-player gaming session? Or does the Steam version of those games require you to be online all the time, also during single-player? Steam offline-mode is disabled for them?
Not really sure about Dragon's Dogma, but in regards to Dark Souls, the game actively seeks out an internet connection. The only way to play offline in any SoulsBorne game is to disable the wifi/yank the ethernet cord of the device you're playing it on.
Not a good sign, if I wanted online components, I'd play an MMO, all I want is a solid single player experience.
avatar
timppu: As long as it has a meaningful single-player campaign that doesn't require me to be online, I am fine. If not, then I probably won't buy the game, unless I will consider is must-have. I would have been actually surprised if the game wouldn't have had any online components at all, in this day and age.

I am more interested to know what this means for a possible Steam version? Will Cyberpunk be Galaxy-only (no Steam version), or will the Steam version require one to create and use also a Galaxy account/client, or will they really go through the trouble of creating the same online components (multiplayer, social hub, whatever) separately for the Galaxy and Steam versions?
Since many games have Steam/Galaxy crossplay, I don't think it will need both.
Anyway it's stupid from them. They should focus on what they're good at, telling a story. 99% of their fans don't care about "online/social features".
Given that it almost MUST show up in this store, there is the potential for CDPR making life difficult for gOg depending on what's meant in that article. But with few details at this point it's mostly guessing what exactly they're talking about. As far as teases go, they've barely lifted the dress to show us the shoes.

avatar
timppu: I am more interested to know what this means for a possible Steam version? Will Cyberpunk be Galaxy-only (no Steam version), or will the Steam version require one to create and use also a Galaxy account/client, or will they really go through the trouble of creating the same online components (multiplayer, social hub, whatever) separately for the Galaxy and Steam versions?
Steam-based with Crossplay on top? Maybe.
Post edited November 14, 2017 by HereForTheBeer
avatar
fishbaits: “Online is necessary, or very recommended if you wish to achieve a long-term success.
... If this statement is valid for single player, i.e. if online is necessary to achieve some goals in the single player campaign, I'm out of here.
avatar
fishbaits: “Multiplayer is strategically important, playing online is strategically important, because we want to have a commercial leg for service type games, ...
Service type games ... games as a service ... that's the exact opposite of DRM free games! So CD Project has finally openly stated that they want to move away from DRM-free. That's sad.

Now if we only could get a dev in here to comment on this.
I think people need to have a little faith

I love a good single player game as much as the next guy, but adding online elements doesn't necessarily mean that it will be detrimental to the single player

In Dark Souls case, it was both hindered and enhanced by an online component, though was arguably not enough to have any major impact on someone who just wanted a great single player game... The only real problem was the lack of a built in "opt out" feature

In Dragon's Dogma's case, not only was the online component non intrusive to the single player in any way, but is rather something that greatly enhanced an already fantastic game for those that wanted some light social functionality and a bit of personality. I thought it was brilliant, actually. And, to those completely uninterested, it was as simple as going to the in game settings and turning online functionality off
avatar
MadalinStroe: How do you do that? As far as I know in Dark Souls you are invaded by other players. There are no opt-out solutions. And in Dragon's Dogma case, the multiplayer component is that the NPCs you can recruit, are copies of random players characters, which makes them stronger than scripted NPCs.

Please, correct me where I'm wrong, which I don't doubt I am.

To be honest if Cyberpunk ends up using the Dragon's Dogma way of adding a multiplayer component, then I'm fine with it.
You can get out of online stuff in Dark Souls games, but it means either playing steam in offline mode (for which the game will remind you a few times) or blocking or disconnecting your internots. Not quite the same as an option though.
avatar
Mr_Classica: I think people need to have little faith
FTFY. With the track record of going back on promises and principles, and attempts to 'encourage' Galaxy use in a backhanded way, my faith in GOG/CD Project is very little indeed.

avatar
Mr_Classica: I love a good single player game as much as the next guy, but adding online elements doesn't necessarily mean that it will be detrimental to the single player
Unless the single player campaign is tailored around the online functionality. If they want to push for 'service type' games, a logical step would be to castrate the single-player game, so that online / social crap becomes necessary to progress in the story.

I don't own Dark Souls, but I played it at a friends place. And the online functionality was really annoying. There is nothing worse than some internet trolls invading your (supposedly) single player game. There are reasons why I hardly play any MMO games any more and I won't buy any single player game that is infested with social / online / forced multiplayer components.
I'll reserve my judgement until more detailed info is available, even though "we want to have a commercial leg for service type games, games which generate stable income" sounds a lot like microtransactions to me, which could be everything from totally irrelevant to highly annoying or unethical (gambling).

In any case, it's kind of interesting to see (once again) how quickly you can go from taking up a stance against industry standards to feeling the need to comply to them, once you've outgrown your idealistic niche and become big enough for your actions to actually matter. ;)
Post edited November 14, 2017 by Leroux