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

If it's about like a co-op mode that can be ignored then why not?
Rockstar is a good example of a company that does it right, apparently:

If you don't spend enough real money in GTA 5 (ingame grinding takes forever and everything is purposely set very very high), ban them for 6 months and delete their characters, and subsequently "force" people to spend more, after getting them hooked on the game.

I mean, can you really afford not playing when everyone else is?!? Pay up or be left outside.
Well, from what I read (might be the same article, might be another one) they suggested the online component would be some form of pub-hub where you can contact other players to play minigames with them or sth... Which would actually be fine with me and might even be a nice thing - as long as it remains strictly optional.
Apart from that, I have to say that CDPR's marketing talks have always been very much that, e.g it was often lamented that "The Witcher 3 did not break any sales records and there's lots of room for improvement". I'm never quite sure whether to be disgruntled by this sort of thing or whether I should actually appreciate the honesty...

As for the actual online/possibly multiplayer aspects of the game, everything is just wild speculations at this point. I have been and will remain skeptical regarding Cyberpunk - if it actually turns out not to be terrible that will be a nice surprise :) Personally, I don't have that much faith in CDPR, but I guess many people (not necessarily the Gog crowd) feel the exact opposite way about said announcement.
I seriously doubt it will escalate as much as EAs BF2 did but thats the first channel I saw talking about it & where mirroring my worries:
Actually the concept of a pub-hub in 2077 would be awesome - like in the old-school RPGs where you would go to a tavern to talk with an NPC to get info (like is usually the case in a tabletop too).

Imagining in 2077 having an actually Pub/Bar like an old underground American Speakeasy during prohibition as the place or places you have to find out about by listening to NPCs in game or getting some info from other players to get the true underground 2077 feeling would be a cool way to go about IMO.

From there, being able to add others to a quest you are on or join others on their quest would be a pretty fun. You can make it deeper if certain optional/side quests require certain character-types to advance, then you and others can team based on character class to accomplish different missions or multiplayer goals.
Post edited November 19, 2017 by MajicMan
CharlesGrey: 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.
real.geizterfahr: One of the main reasons why I don't play any multiplayer games. I can live without Orcs called -=1337_HaXXor=- and gEt_cRaNcEr_aDn_diE_2004 who're telling me how good my momma sucked their wieners last night -.- There are too many 14 years old idiots out there.
Worse are the 30yr olds that are STILL 14 years old...I despise MMOs, imagine having to rely on your gaming experience being surrounded by the toxic assholes from the steam forums! Hopefully, it will retain a strong SP experience, though, I'm sure that will change over time...
The whole entire notion of Cyberpunk (as a genre) is that of a connected, and likely dystopian, future. Online elements (in some form) are practically a necessity when it comes to making the game feel authentic. =)
Post edited November 18, 2017 by
avatar The whole entire notion of Cyberpunk (as a genre) is that of a connected, and likely dystopian, future. Online elements (in some form) are practically a necessity when it comes to making the game feel authentic. =)
That's strange because none of the Cyberpunk I've read came across as unauthentic. o.O
avatar The whole entire notion of Cyberpunk (as a genre) is that of a connected, and likely dystopian, future. Online elements (in some form) are practically a necessity when it comes to making the game feel authentic. =)
In all honesty even though I don't care about MMOs and much prefer single-player games, I think "online" is expected of a Cyberpunk-themed game.

As long as CDP creates a good, solid offline, single-player campaign, they're happy to create as many online gimmicks as they want -for the "online crowd".
Maybe you can hack into other people's games and place hints...

Or a real coop mode where one person is the hacker, keeping security at bay while the other "physically" infiltrates the facility...
avatar The news doesn't make me sad one bit. This thread does.

You people are are whipping yourself into a frenzy based on a single sentence that doesn't provide any context. The guy said there will be some online elements related to the game. That could mean ANYTHING, yet you baselessly assume the absolute worst. The whole thread reads like a birther subreddit, except birthers have a lot more to to on than you do and make much less of a leap of faith in building their conspiracy theory.

At this point we know literally nothing at all. Keep your wild imaginations in check and maybe you'll be less upset.
I'm all for the wait and see approach, but

(a) there isn't just a single sentence about this. We remember that 7 million $ Polish
government grant well. They've been developing that crap for well over a year now.
This here crap, from December 2016:

Seamless Multiplayer
Comprehensive technology enables the creation of unique gameplay for many players,
taking into account the search of opponents, session management, replication facilities,
and support of a variety of game modes along with a unique set of dedicated tools.

(b) In CDPR's Cyberpunk 2077 communication, for years now, the addressees are the
investors and the investors only. Apparently, they're making a video game for investors.
Yeah, that'll turn out great, reliably.

(c) The argument that Kicinski makes – "multiplayer is strategically important, playing online
is strategically important, because we want to have a commercial leg for service type games,
games which generate stable income [...]" – points at a very specific form of multiplayer.
One that's central to the gaming experience. One that's consistently monetized. The crappy one.

(d) this exact Kicinski argument of "service type games which generate stable income" can be
applied to any number of crappy non-features games have today from forced multiplayer to
microtransactions to loot boxes to tacked on DLC to Early Access games to forced daily
client use i.e. the most effective form of DRM there is today.

(e) in that context, am I the only one who is irked by the fact that the only real news that
surfaces after five years is this stuff?

(f) in that context, am I the only one who suspects that the only thing in this game that's fixed,
that's on its way, that has a clear concept "already", are the bollocks multiplayer elements?

(g) And if you suspect that already, it's fairly easy to put this old news into the context of actual
news i.e. the glassdoor reviews about employee motivation, work ethic and the erratic, oscillating,
ever changing world of CEO ideas.

(h) It's the video game industry. There are indeed cases where things have turned out better than
feared. But they are, in my experience, few and far between. Usually when such bad news
surfaces, it's only a fraction of the actual bad news.

(i) All this fits marvellously into CDPR's traceable straight line descent into Triple-A-dom.
The company isn't worth anything to me if it's just another Poopiesoft or Electronic Farts.
And it's going right there right now.

Also, not sure how this works in your opinion, but aren't people LESS upset eventually when they harbor worst fears and eventually the product doesn't even confirm a quarter of them?

avatar The whole entire notion of Cyberpunk (as a genre) is that of a connected, and likely dystopian, future. Online elements (in some form) are practically a necessity when it comes to making the game feel authentic. =)
Wait, so it's not a Cyberpunk game if it doesn't make us feel like we ourselves are living in a dystopian future already?

Also, it's not strictly speaking a Cyberpunk game if you don't play it via bionic implants. =)

"You mean you have to use your hands? That's like a baby's toy."
Post edited November 19, 2017 by Vainamoinen

"Worry not. When thinking CP2077, think nothing less than TW3 — huge single player, open world, story-driven RPG. No hidden catch, you get what you pay for — no bullshit, just honest gaming like with Wild Hunt. We leave greed to others."

Which makes this confusing:

“Online is necessary, or very recommended if you wish to achieve a long-term success. At some point, we have mentioned that there will be a certain online element related to Cyberpunk.”

See if we get a reply.
Sadly, until they explain what their vision of online is going to be for the game it's all words. I think there's plenty of good faith to have in CDPR that they're not going to take huge steps straight into the lootbox territory or anything like that, but even small steps in the wrong direction would still be steps in the wrong direction. Slippery slope and all that stuff.

That said, personally this whole lootbox thing doesn't quite bother me (yet)
Post edited November 19, 2017 by Pheace
fishbaits: Which makes this confusing:
"Online is necessary" can mean a lot of thing, it doesn't necessary means that online will be necessary for Cyberpunk, or that there will be some crazy lootbox system, but it can simply means that, to have a more stable revenue income, they consider that they need to have online games like Gwent and that they plan to have some Gwent-like game tied to Cyberpunk too.

That would make sense, games like Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk are a huge financial risk, releasing a AAA budget game once every 3-5 years is very risky, if the game is not successful for whatever reason (And Deus Ex and System Shock are here to remind us that good games can still be commercial failures) it can kill the company.

So having games like Gwent that doesn't require a crazy budget and have a pretty good ROI can be good way for them to mitigate the risks and give them more financial stability.