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

My bet is on a Gwent-like implementation, only the other way around with focus on a standalone offline singleplayer part at least the size of Wild Hunt and an optional multiplayer part.
low rated
It amazes me that people think this is going to be more significant than what is... the focal point is single player which has been well stated. MP will be nothing more than an optional part that can probably be safely ignored. Like the vast majority of games already on GOG.

The way they are talking it appears to be something like players being able to meet up a certain locations in-game and interact with each other playing mini games, etc.

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?
It's possible they may skip a Steam release seeing as Witcher 3 had no problem selling very well on GOG. In my opinion I think they should if they are serious about pushing GOG/Galaxy as a real alternative platform.

If they do release a Steam version it will likely use the Galaxy crossplay feature. You don't need a GOG account or the Galaxy client if using a non GOG version. What that means is everyone, regardless of platform (be it Galaxy, Steam, console, etc) will connect to the same server which is handled by the Galaxy infrastructure on the backend which is all configured behind the scenes so to speak.

GOG has specifically been building Galaxy MP to handle this and for this purpose. The first real test for it was GWENT which anyone can play together regardless of platform (except Xbox One to PS4 players because Sony doesn't allow it). Instead it's console players connecting with PC players or other console players on the same platform.
Post edited November 14, 2017 by BKGaming
Starkrun: Going out on a limb and saying this will be like Dragons Dogma or Dark Souls "Multiplayer" where its sort of real but not and to to get the full experience you need to be online... I dont think ther stupid enough to pull a Van Helsing/Victor Vran so you can only do certain quests and modes online.
I'm still hopeful it will only be Dark Souls style multiplayer elements, as you said, which are completely optional, while the main focus is on a good singleplayer campaign. I wouldn't even go so far and say you need those online features for the full experience, since some of them can actually spoil the fun of the game, especially on a first playthrough.

On the other hand, apparently Gwent has been a major financial success for them, so it would come as no surprise if they go all-in with online features, multiplayer, in-app purchases etc. -- Would significantly lessen my interest in the game, but from a business point of view it seems like a logical consequence.
i'll wait until we have some actual info before looking for things to complain about.
I'm ok with multiplayer as long as it is something like Mass Effect which is a separate mode to singleplayer. I'm totally not ok with having random invading pvp'ers or running and jumping idiots with names like DOMINATOR777.
The only way for me to be fine is to have a MP component which is just shit and appealling the casuals.

IF it will play a core role and IF it will lock anything like gear, items and whatnot, then I'm out (other than being pissed off beyond compare).

I do not want another Absolver, even less from CDPR.
I'd be OK with a separate multiplayer mode (or even better, a separate game in the style of Gwent), but this sentence really worries me:

"And in the future, we can imagine a lot of connections between big games and service type games – We have to acknowledge it, it is obvious."

It could mean making 'service-type' projects based on the same IP - or it could mean including those elements in the 'big-name' games, in the form of microtransactions etc. I really, really hope that doesn't happen.
Irx: I'm ok with multiplayer as long as it is something like Mass Effect which is a separate mode to singleplayer. I'm totally not ok with having random invading pvp'ers or running and jumping idiots with names like DOMINATOR777.
Hah hah -- That's exactly one of the downsides of multiplayer gaming. Not only are many of the random players out there rude, mentally challenged 14 year olds, they also tend to have completely immersion breaking or downright offensive user names. DOMINATOR777 would be on the mild side of things.

May not be a big deal in a game like Counterstrike or Quake, but it's not something I want in a cinematic, story-heavy game such as The Witcher or Cyberpunk 2077 ( depending on what they do with the latter ).
Breja: Anyway, it's been almost 5 years (!) since that trailer. They really jumped the gun with that one, didn't they?
Lucumo: They jumped the gun with a recruitment trailer? That doesn't make any sense.
Recruitment? I don't remember it having anything to do with recruitment.
I don't get the automatic hate for 2077 and online component when nobody has seen or heard anything of what the multiplayer will be like.

CDP is not perfect, but they do go through a heck of a lot to make great games and offer their buyers a lot of value and don't pull the loot boxes, rip-off DLC practice that are common today, so I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

In addition, the Cyberpunk 2077 universe began as a tabletop multiplayer RPG so why would a developer not put in an online and multiplayer component?

2077 is a game where you choose a character class and play a character you build - it is completely different then the Witcher series being the story of Geralt.

It very well could turn out to be awesome - and I really hope it does turn out to be awesome.

I am more concerned that the game will require the Galaxy download and be required to play in single player only. It would be great if it had no Galaxy requirement and had a LAN inclusion.
MajicMan: I don't get the automatic hate for 2077 and online component when nobody has seen or heard anything of what the multiplayer will be like.
You got that wrong. I don't think there is automatic hate for 2077. I am actually looking forward to it and I am hoping for a good singleplayer game. I am also not against it having a multiplayer component, although I will not use it. Many single player games have multiplayer capabilities as well and yes, it would make sense to play as a team in the Cyberpunk world.

What worries me is the keyword 'service type games'. Games as a service is a business model that's strongly pushed by Valve and EA et. al. And it is something that is the direct opposite of DRM free games which you download once and then are able to use them always. So reading 'we want to have ... service type games' and 'Online is necessary' in a statement by CD Project - who so far published their games DRM free - is worrying. Especially since 'online' should NOT be necessary for a single player game. Forced online for single player games is DRM.

But let's wait and see what they actually do.
Oh yeah, I think the biggest change for me for now is that I will most probably not pre-order the game (like I did with The Witcher 3). I'll wait until more user information on the significance of the online features, and what kind of offline single-player does it have.

I vote with my wallet.
Post edited November 14, 2017 by timppu
fortune_p_dawg: i'll wait until we have some actual info before looking for things to complain about.
That's just crazy talk. Grab your pitchfork and light those torches, man!

Seriously though, I'll wait for some actual info on the game itself before making any decisions or complaining about the game. There really needs to be a lot more information about the game before it's worth getting worked up about.
The statement "Online is necessary" may only refer to needing online connectivity if you want to play online or play multiplayer (that would suck for no LAN support), but it doesn't say the game requires and online connection for the single player campaign.

As for games being a service - that is really old. We called them arcades back then and you paid a quarter at a time to play a game or get a continue, or more lives, etc.

Adding DLC to a game as a service doesn't have to be bad. Look at the Borderlands series, the DLC expansions have been excellent featuring new characters to play, new NPCs added to the universe, new large campaigns, new weapons, new level cap and both are excellent games in single player and multiplayer.

I don't see CDP going in the loot crate garbage direction. I don't see 2077 being Battlefield 2, Forza 7, Middle Earth Shadows of War, Destiny series, etc.
ugh, multiplayer and the slippery road to maximizing profits that may bring, such as skins, mounts with various perks, weapon packs etc etc