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?
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."