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

×
The time has finally come! Cyberpunk 2077, the game from CD PROJEKT RED that takes open-world RPG to an entirely new level, is now available on GOG.COM!

Right now, Cyberpunk 2077 holds 91/100 score on metacritic and 92/100 on OpenCritic. IGN praises the title from CD PROJEKT RED for the fact that it "offers a staggering amount of choice in how to build your character, approach quests, and confront enemies, and your decisions can have a tangible and natural-feeling impact on both the world around you and the stories of the people who inhabit it".

Now it’s time for you to dive into Night City and see the futuristic world of Cyberpunk 2077 for yourself! Check our game guide tailored specially to make the start of your adventure as swift as possible. Also, be sure to take a look at our interviews with Mike A. Pondsmith (the creator of the Cyberpunk RPG) and the CD PROJEKT RED developers to learn more about the game’s unique lore and gameplay.

Don’t hesitate and start your adventure with Cyberpunk 2077 now. And remember, if you buy the game on GOG.COM, 100% of your money goes to CD PROJEKT Group.

Share our love for games? Subscribe to our newsletter for news, releases, and exclusive discounts. Visit the “Privacy & settings” section of your GOG.COM account to join now!
avatar
Swedrami: Schreier at it again:
Inside Cyberpunk 2077's Disastrous Rollout
Nothing really new, just Schreier milking it as much as he can like always, I am pretty sure we can expect 5-10 more articles on the subject from him in the futurre. We don't really learn anything new.
avatar
Swedrami: Schreier at it again:
Inside Cyberpunk 2077's Disastrous Rollout
avatar
CMiq: Much ado about nothing resp. things we already knew, not to mention click-baity as fuck, as is the usual with this guy.
Cheers for linking an archived article.

Of course the 2018 demo was all prefabricated and staged, all gameplay demos are. They aren't also called a "vertical slice" for nothing.

I can see CDPRED doing an "enhanced edition" sort of hard relaunch, once the "ironing out" with the announced big patches and updates is done. It's the only way they could still get the 90+ score they've and I guess they're still so desperately craving for.
One would think they'd have their priorities set on other things for the foreseeable future, but with the industry's general pathological obsession with the metascore you never know. We'll see.

Would be a first if CDPR's current release would get the EE/remaster treatment before the previously shipped title did. Not that The Witcher 3 necessarily needed an enhanced edition or a remaster, though.
avatar
Swedrami: Would be a first if CDPR's current release would get the EE/remaster treatment before the previously shipped title did. Not that The Witcher 3 necessarily needed an enhanced edition or a remaster, though.
For all practical purposes the GOTY Edition of Witcher 3 is an EE - includes all bug fixes and DLC added in on package. I *guess* they didn't technically add any new content (beyond incorporating all the existing stuff in one game) but it already had a ton of little things released week in and week out in the early days - stuff that would have been typical "EE" edition content had been released prior.
avatar
Swedrami: Would be a first if CDPR's current release would get the EE/remaster treatment before the previously shipped title did. Not that The Witcher 3 necessarily needed an enhanced edition or a remaster, though.
avatar
Ixamyakxim: For all practical purposes the GOTY Edition of Witcher 3 is an EE - includes all bug fixes and DLC added in on package. I *guess* they didn't technically add any new content (beyond incorporating all the existing stuff in one game) but it already had a ton of little things released week in and week out in the early days - stuff that would have been typical "EE" edition content had been released prior.
Ladies and gentlemen I dare CDPR to release "gOTY" edition once they fix it - that is - GLITCH of the year edition /s
( should they ever relese "game of the year edition" I dare international community to dubb it GLITCH oty edition instead )

avatar
B1tF1ghter: Well, I don't personally play the game (and seeing how ridiculously BAD technical-state-wise it is atm I don't plan on playing it for a LONG time) but from my perspective the state of the game represents somewhere around alpha version development stage.
It's beyond bad.
I cannot fathom how did this allegedly pass QA at all.
avatar
Swedrami: You're subscribing to a very broad definition of an alpha version there.
May be the case for the consoles but for the PC version this is simply not true, despite what the public says or wants you to believe.
(...)
Let me start with "I am somewhat invovled in gamedev world".
Mark my words: Graphics quality does not have to have ANYTHING to do with code quality as well as "general" level of game quality.
Let me rephrase what I previously said:
CP2077 represents QUALITY level of around alpha dev stage.
You really CAN'T let SOMETHING LIKE THIS let through in any SANE studio.
QA would absolutely DESTROY that release.
We have very high certainty here that QA for prev gen console port DID NOT PASS the testing but CDPR HQ ignored it.
Really, if they had ANY QA AT ALL, at least SOME of this shit would come up. There is no way "they didn't know". No. THEY KNEW what they are about to release.
And what they released DOES represent QUALITY-WISE an alpha.

I would like to also address the "apology video" released by CDPR recently.
There was a phrase there more or less with a meaning of "from our internal testing we didn't encounter bugs such as players do encounter on prev gen after game's release".
That is:
1.Very half-assed question dodge
2.I don't think what he said is even true
3.I have very nagging feeling they SOMEHOW decided to do QA on PS4 / XONE devkits... Which needless to say, is very biased form of testing that is not supposed to be done as console devkits are beefed up for the purpose of debugging overhead. Devkits don't exactly represent exact level of performance "normal" consoles do. Majority of problems with prev gen port seems to stem from texture streaming issues which are caused by inadequacies of game's engine in relation to prev gen capabilities. That's why they cut major amount of "NPC population". That's also why there are most of existing problems (related specificly to prev gen). There's just no way majority of those bugs would not come up should they test on NORMAL consoles instead of devkits (and default specs and not aftermarket ssd swap).
avatar
B1tF1ghter: Ladies and gentlemen I dare CDPR to release "gOTY" edition once they fix it - that is - GLITCH of the year edition /s
( should they ever relese "game of the year edition" I dare international community to dubb it GLITCH oty edition instead )

Let me start with "I am somewhat invovled in gamedev world".
Mark my words: Graphics quality does not have to have ANYTHING to do with code quality as well as "general" level of game quality.
Let me rephrase what I previously said:
CP2077 represents QUALITY level of around alpha dev stage.
You really CAN'T let SOMETHING LIKE THIS let through in any SANE studio.
QA would absolutely DESTROY that release.
We have very high certainty here that QA for prev gen console port DID NOT PASS the testing but CDPR HQ ignored it.
Really, if they had ANY QA AT ALL, at least SOME of this shit would come up. There is no way "they didn't know". No. THEY KNEW what they are about to release.
And what they released DOES represent QUALITY-WISE an alpha.

I would like to also address the "apology video" released by CDPR recently.
There was a phrase there more or less with a meaning of "from our internal testing we didn't encounter bugs such as players do encounter on prev gen after game's release".
That is:
1.Very half-assed question dodge
2.I don't think what he said is even true
3.I have very nagging feeling they SOMEHOW decided to do QA on PS4 / XONE devkits... Which needless to say, is very biased form of testing that is not supposed to be done as console devkits are beefed up for the purpose of debugging overhead. Devkits don't exactly represent exact level of performance "normal" consoles do. Majority of problems with prev gen port seems to stem from texture streaming issues which are caused by inadequacies of game's engine in relation to prev gen capabilities. That's why they cut major amount of "NPC population". That's also why there are most of existing problems (related specificly to prev gen). There's just no way majority of those bugs would not come up should they test on NORMAL consoles instead of devkits (and default specs and not aftermarket ssd swap).
CDP's Apology and the subsequent, anonymously sourced interviews essentially say CDP knew it wasn't ready, and didn't care, just put it on CDPR to fic the issues. Just make it work, like "Bioware Magic" or Todd Howard's "It just Works". CDP heard about the problems and under played them and blew them off. I totally believe that. They set a release deadline without asking if it could realistically be met. Devs said they originally thought it was a joke. A release date never should have been set for 2020 to begin with, but the hype was building and the greedy fucks at the top could only wait so long before getting that next cash infusion. It's not about QA, it's about people ignoring or not understanding problems and over promising on what the people who actually do the work can do. We had a sales man like that at my job. Would promise customers the moon if it got him the sale and then just told the field service guys to "figure it out" and "don't make [him] look bad" Well, he's no longer at our company because we decided to make him look bad for promising shit that wasn't feasible to complete.
avatar
Swedrami: You're subscribing to a very broad definition of an alpha version there.
May be the case for the consoles but for the PC version this is simply not true, despite what the public says or wants you to believe.
(...)
avatar
B1tF1ghter: Let me start with "I am somewhat invovled in gamedev world".
Mark my words: Graphics quality does not have to have ANYTHING to do with code quality as well as "general" level of game quality.
Let me rephrase what I previously said:
CP2077 represents QUALITY level of around alpha dev stage.
You really CAN'T let SOMETHING LIKE THIS let through in any SANE studio.
QA would absolutely DESTROY that release.
We have very high certainty here that QA for prev gen console port DID NOT PASS the testing but CDPR HQ ignored it.
Really, if they had ANY QA AT ALL, at least SOME of this shit would come up. There is no way "they didn't know". No. THEY KNEW what they are about to release.
And what they released DOES represent QUALITY-WISE an alpha.
I still respectfully disagree.
If you would actually play it - which you mentioned earlier you did not - on PC, with decent hardware, I'm pretty sure you too would come to the conclusion that Cyberpunk 2077, even on the shipped v1.03 release is far from anything you'd normally associate with an "alpha" state. Both quantity- AND quality-wise.

On the consoles and on older PC hardware it's, from what it looks like, a different story, but, again, if your rig at least meets most of the recommended PC specs (like in my case) it's in a perfectly playable "release candidate" state, warts and all.
avatar
paladin181: CDP's Apology and the subsequent, anonymously sourced interviews essentially say CDP knew it wasn't ready, and didn't care, just put it on CDPR to fic the issues. Just make it work, like "Bioware Magic" or Todd Howard's "It just Works". CDP heard about the problems and under played them and blew them off. I totally believe that.
And how could anyone not believe it? The fact they prevented reviewers from using their own gameplay footage, and only allowed the use of footage provided by the company itself is pretty much just outright pleading "guilty", since the only reason to do something like that is if they knew what the unsanctioned videos would reveal.
avatar
B1tF1ghter: Let me start with "I am somewhat invovled in gamedev world".
Mark my words: Graphics quality does not have to have ANYTHING to do with code quality as well as "general" level of game quality.
Let me rephrase what I previously said:
CP2077 represents QUALITY level of around alpha dev stage.
You really CAN'T let SOMETHING LIKE THIS let through in any SANE studio.
QA would absolutely DESTROY that release.
We have very high certainty here that QA for prev gen console port DID NOT PASS the testing but CDPR HQ ignored it.
Really, if they had ANY QA AT ALL, at least SOME of this shit would come up. There is no way "they didn't know". No. THEY KNEW what they are about to release.
And what they released DOES represent QUALITY-WISE an alpha.
avatar
Swedrami: I still respectfully disagree.
If you would actually play it - which you mentioned earlier you did not - on PC, with decent hardware, I'm pretty sure you too would come to the conclusion that Cyberpunk 2077, even on the shipped v1.03 release is far from anything you'd normally associate with an "alpha" state. Both quantity- AND quality-wise.

On the consoles and on older PC hardware it's, from what it looks like, a different story, but, again, if your rig at least meets most of the recommended PC specs (like in my case) it's in a perfectly playable "release candidate" state, warts and all.
Actually, it doesn't matter if "I" played it or not and on what.
Do you judge quality of game code based on "it works for me"? Because what you are saying surely paints such a picture.
It frankly DOESN'T MATTER if by some miracle * I would be "THE ONE" to get marvelous experience and experience no bugs.
It DOESN'T MATTER. Because it only proves one SINGULAR case.
Every case is unique.
And since there is an influx of "this game is glitchy as hell" videos as well as other type of media style reports it is safe to assume the AVERAGE experience is rather below optimal, or should I say, not exactly acceptable nor conforming to so called STANDARDS.

Let me remind you there is no "specs" on consoles.
If you make a port you either make it right or don't make it at all.
There is just no way CDPR didn't know how limitting PS4/XONE devkits were. EVEN THE DEVKITS, special versions of consoles beefed up specificly for debugging, are not THAT POWERFUL as current/next gen (PS5 / X-whatever).
Any texture streaming issues would have for sure showed up at least SOMEWHAT even on the devkits.

You cannot change graphical settings (thus texture streaming load) on 99% of console games.
So if a port is butchered, it's the end of the line, you should pull it out until fixed, otherwise permanently.
There is simply no excuse of "you are running too weak hardware".
All console units are the same minus disk drive swap, thermal paste redo, and some other small tweaks leveraging overriding thermal design limitations to squeeze extra 1 % of performance every Z time units.

"Recommended"?
Excuse me. Do you remember that recommended =/= minimal?
It DOESN'T MATTER how "well" game works on RECOMMENDED settings.
If it's not UNIVERSALLY working on publicly officially proclaimed MINIMAL required hardware then it means somebody failed their job miserably.

The "works for me" is no argument.
I don't have to play on some ludicrous power hardware.
If I am above or exact same as "minimal" then I should by the rule be safe to play. If I am hypothetically not then it means somebody lied about the requirements.
Also just because the game doesn't glitch for me or you (hypothetically) does NOT mean it's fine for EVERYBODY.

You bring up "I play this on implied high end hardware and it works fine for me so far".
So? How does it change ANYTHING.
It works for you? Good for you. Congratulations. It's irrelevant.
But considering intensity of reports average experience is far from flawless. And that's what I'm addressing here.
Just because it's flawless for you does not change that it's a special level of glitchy for vast amount of users.

* "If you would have played".
Let me tell you this:
I tend to bring out the most hidden and bizzare bugs in games and software when even just casually playing/using them.
I tend to find broken shit in software that was deemed patched and well working for years.
So if "I would play it" I would likely glitch the shit out of this game.
Especially since I know stuff about game engines and tend to casually break their limits.
So if there are glitches I would definitely notice.
avatar
Swedrami: I still respectfully disagree.
If you would actually play it - which you mentioned earlier you did not - on PC, with decent hardware, I'm pretty sure you too would come to the conclusion that Cyberpunk 2077, even on the shipped v1.03 release is far from anything you'd normally associate with an "alpha" state. Both quantity- AND quality-wise.

On the consoles and on older PC hardware it's, from what it looks like, a different story, but, again, if your rig at least meets most of the recommended PC specs (like in my case) it's in a perfectly playable "release candidate" state, warts and all.
avatar
B1tF1ghter: Actually, it doesn't matter if "I" played it or not and on what.
Do you judge quality of game code based on "it works for me"? Because what you are saying surely paints such a picture.
It frankly DOESN'T MATTER if by some miracle * I would be "THE ONE" to get marvelous experience and experience no bugs.
It DOESN'T MATTER. Because it only proves one SINGULAR case.
Every case is unique.
And since there is an influx of "this game is glitchy as hell" videos as well as other type of media style reports it is safe to assume the AVERAGE experience is rather below optimal, or should I say, not exactly acceptable nor conforming to so called STANDARDS.

...
Except that it's not just me and my singular case.
Just like there is a considerable number of people for whom Cyberpunk 2077 on PC is not running in a satisfyingly manner or not at all, there is also a considerable number of people for whom Cyberpunk 2077 on PC is running just fine, (again) warts and all.

Which is one of the reasons you cannot objectively apply the "alpha" tag on the PC version. Because, again, it's simply not true. It's nowhere near anything what would constitute an "alpha version" in the common sense.
"Unpolished", "unoptimized" and/or "rushed" are much better descriptors of the state the PC version is currently in.

Furthermore there's a clear distinction between the PC version and the console ports.
Just because the console ports are in this alleged "alpha" state doesn't automatically apply the "alpha" tag on the PC version, they're still separate things.