Cyberpunk 2077 MP monetization will make you happy to spend real money

KazeoHin said:
Micro transactions have no ethical place in a game that ALREADY costs money.

That's what the price of the game is. You're buying the game. That's where the developers are making their money back.
Click to expand...
ok instead of $60 pay $250 for the game then you will never see micro transactions in the game ok?
 
If hearing there are opportunities to spend money on in-game purchases makes people swear off the game...they probably weren't going to buy it anyways. That's ok - keep voting with your wallets. It's what I would do, if I had those convictions.
 
I don't understand some people's logic here;

Single player game with no microtransactions = Awesome, buy the game.

Same single player game with added multiplayer that's still free but also with additional paid content = Fuck the whole game even though I and most others aren't even playing it for multiplayer.

If the game is good otherwise, I have absolutely no issue with the devs/publishers trying to generate some easy additional revenue in order to better support the studios and fund their future games. Now if the microtransactions and day 1 DLC crap starts leaking into the single-player side of the game, then yeah I would not support that and be right there with you. But that's an important distinction to make and not buying the game now because of that sends them the wrong message IMO.
 
alxlwson said:
You should finish reading the thread.
Click to expand...
WTF are you on about? Finish reading my post and reply with something relevant.
viscountalpha said:
The problem is, game development costs have skyrocketed while the (now initial price) has stayed fairly static.
Click to expand...
That's not my or your problem. If game development costs have gone up then do something about it. Charge more money or don't add stupid features like Gwent. Did anyone actually like Gwent in Witcher 3? I sure as shit didn't.
I'm very unhappy hearing Microtransactions coming into this game in any form but I need more information to make a final decision if this will actually make me want to buy this title or not.
Click to expand...
I don't need more information because a micro-transaction is a micro-transaction. You can sugar coat it however you like but if I'm spending real money to buy a digital in game good then that shit is bad.

This could be a deal breaker for A LOT of people.
Click to expand...
Or fall into obscurity like Red Dead Redemption 2 multiplayer. Cyberpunk 2077 is a single player game with multiplayer added on. Nobody was going to play it before and micro-transactions means even less people will. This is one of those situations where the success of a game is assumed guaranteed before it even hits store shelves and therefore the developers think they can get away with things like micro-transactions.

filip said:
They probably want to be the next GTA V online. They make good games that aren't shit, they deserve the success.
Click to expand...
GTAV is one of the few single player games that went multiplayer and became largely successful. Probably a bit too successful as GTAV online has casinos as part of their MTX.


northrop said:
That would be too hard. But on that note, I'd also like for all these people to reference their posts from around 4 years ago went Gwent went online with MTX :joyful: I can only assume CDPR was dead to them back then as well, and now they're just reminding us of that again :p
Click to expand...
Gwent is a free to play game and not one you pay $60 and has micro-transactions. I have no problems with micro-transactions if the game costs nothing but obviously CyperPunk 2077 is not a free game.
123Lanoix said:
ok instead of $60 pay $250 for the game then you will never see micro transactions in the game ok?
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with this, but if you can't find anyone to buy your $250 game then you deal with the losses. Realistically, nobody is going to buy a game above $60 because people aren't earning more money in 2020 compared to 2000.

T4rd said:
I don't understand some people's logic here;

Single player game with no microtransactions = Awesome, buy the game.

Same single player game with added multiplayer that's still free but also with additional paid content = Fuck the whole game even though I and most others aren't even playing it for multiplayer.
Click to expand...

Because the micro-transaction version has taken away elements of the game and is selling it to you in pieces with a huge mark up. It's not value added but value lost. If the mulitplayer feature is that good then sell is as a separate game. Sell it as Cyperpunk Online for $30 or $20 with micro-transactions and see if people will buy it. I assure you they won't, because even CDPR isn't sure if the multiplayer will take off. But after spending a month playing the game you might be addicted enough to go online.
 
How do you know they are stripping things out of the game and then selling them back to you? Do you have access to information we don't?

For all we know they could be purely cosmetic. In which case, I am not going to care if they try to sell an outfit for 99 cents or whatever. If they sell gold, or in game items that affect outcomes, I will care. Dependent on how much effect it has on MP outcomes. If it is little or nothing, I am not going to care all that much.

Micro transactions are out of the bag. We let them get away with it, and now they are the norm. That ship has sailed, but now, people are letting EA/MS/Sony get away with games as a subscription. In 10 years most games will be on a subscription as a result. Take your stand where it might still count, not where you have already lost.

As always, it's your money. I can't tell you how to spend or not spend it.
 
After how they did things with TW3, CDPR can do no wrong in my eyes. Lots of free stuff, a couple of excellent paid expansions.

If adding these into CP2077 MP helps them to make more games and improve them, I'm fine with it.

Could they screw the pooch with it? Sure. Do I think they will? Nope.
 
DukenukemX said:
Gwent is a free to play game and not one you pay $60 and has micro-transactions. I have no problems with micro-transactions if the game costs nothing but obviously CyperPunk 2077 is not a free game.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Cyberpunk 2077 is not a free game. It is a stand alone single player game for which they are charging money for. But the CP Multiplayer is its own separate game. This has been known for well over a year now...

https://www.gamesradar.com/cyberpunk-2077-multiplayer-release-date/
"Currently we are working on Cyberpunk and the multiplayer as the next big game," Nowakowski said later in the call. "The triple-A release we are working on is Cyberpunk multiplayer. We are trying to be as clear as possible in this regard. The date we're releasing Cyberpunk multiplayer - I mean, that's a code name for it - will probably move out of 2021."

Here's another one:

https://www.newsweek.com/cyberpunk-2077-delay-multiplayer-release-date-2021-cd-projekt-1482811#:~:text=While Cyberpunk 2077 will be,but an entirely separate entity.
While Cyberpunk 2077 will be a single-player RPG, a separate multiplayer release is expected in 2022. Currently codenamed Cyberpunk Multiplayer, the game isn't a multiplayer mode for Cyberpunk 2077, but an entirely separate entity.

Who's to say CP MP isn't going to be free to play? There's so little known about this game, it's really hard to come to any conclusions at this point. But please.. continue with your fake outrage.
 
Last edited:
northrop said:
You are correct. Cyberpunk 2077 is not a free game. It is a stand alone single player game for which they are charging money for. But the CP Multiplayer is its own separate game. This has been known for well over a year now...

Who's to say CP MP isn't going to be free to play? There's so little known about this game, it's really hard to come to any conclusions at this point. But please.. continue with your fake outrage.
Click to expand...
Then CDPR is probably better off just not saying anything about the MP until after the SP is out, because it doesn't matter if they try to qualify it with "We're talking about the FREE MP BTW", since the clickbait industrial complex just latches on to the words "Cyberpunk" and "microtransactions" and runs with it like one of those street monkeys in Bangladesh, splattering it everywhere to confuse and enrage.

Cue 1000 youtube videos: "Cyberpunk will have MICROTRANSACTIONS???" - and all of these asshats making this face:

png-clipart-macaulay-culkin-home-alone-kevin-mccallister-macaulay-culkin-peter-mccallister-hollywood-surprised-woman-child-face.png
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
I will be able to get and play CP2077 multiplayer for free? Woohooo!
Click to expand...

I know you're being deliberately obtuse here, but that's actually still up in the air at the moment. Either way though, my point stands as the multiplayer side of the game (and its additional paid content) has no effect on the singer player side.

DukenukemX said:
Because the micro-transaction version has taken away elements of the game and is selling it to you in pieces with a huge mark up. It's not value added but value lost. If the mulitplayer feature is that good then sell is as a separate game. Sell it as Cyperpunk Online for $30 or $20 with micro-transactions and see if people will buy it. I assure you they won't, because even CDPR isn't sure if the multiplayer will take off. But after spending a month playing the game you might be addicted enough to go online.
Click to expand...

Except that's not the case at all and you're making bad assumptions without any citations to say otherwise. I this case, with the information given so far and also the good report and precedent CDPR has from previous games, there is no indication that these multiplayer specific add-ons affect the single player side of the game in any capacity.
 
Gorankar said:
How do you know they are stripping things out of the game and then selling them back to you? Do you have access to information we don't?
Click to expand...
History and a bit of math is how I know. If the online feature is that good then CDPR should strip it from the game and sell it or give it away for free and use the micro-transaction model to support it. That isn't going to happen so adding it to a single player game is not only taking away from the game itself but anything good that could have come from the online feature is no longer there. Remember that $60 purchase is funding this online feature that isn't benefiting you as a player unless you're interested in the online feature. Elements of the single player game might have been stripped because of this as well.

Take for example custom sprays in games. In OverWatch you can't make a custom spray because they sell you sprays. I'm almost certain you can't use or make a custom model or skin in Cyberpunk either, and if they did then they'll want players to buy them from other players. Custom maps, custom mods, basically anything that a player could make in a game like Quake 2 or 3 is no longer possible in modern games with micro-transactions because you have a conflict of interest.



For all we know they could be purely cosmetic.
Click to expand...
Does that make it OK to you? It doesn't to me. In most games when you achieve something great and acquire new gear, you also get a cosmetic upgrade with it. You can look at a player and know they did something amazing because you can recognize the gear. With micro-transaction cosmetics you can look like a badass but in reality you just bought a lot of nice looking gear. This has a negative effect on players who actually achieve something by playing the game, as they're not rewarded for their gameplay.

Micro transactions are out of the bag. We let them get away with it, and now they are the norm.
Click to expand...
I and many other people didn't and I think the industry is retracting a bit as a result. That's why you don't see Cyberpunks single player with micro-transactions because the backlash was so great from other games that nowadays it's mostly an online feature that's added to single player games. Looking at Red Dead Redemption 2's multiplayer and lack of popularity it shows that people don't buy into micro-transaction systems with their purchased games. Most single player games that have tried to add micro-transactions have retracted them soon afterwards.

Back in the late 90's and early 2000's a lot of games came with a multiplayer feature that nobody liked back then, so why would people start liking them now? Putting a micro-transaction system into a paid multiplayer game that's added to a single player game is not going to be popular.
That ship has sailed, but now, people are letting EA/MS/Sony get away with games as a subscription.
Click to expand...
EA isn't exactly popular and MS and Sony are both losing to PC gaming where you don't need a subscription to play games online. I'm not worried in what direction AAA gaming is going in the future. The subscription model is a deterrent and slowly people are pulling away. Ask Blizzard how their games are doing lately since most of their games have micro-transactions now? People got sick of it.
In 10 years most games will be on a subscription as a result. Take your stand where it might still count, not where you have already lost.
Click to expand...
I'm certain that Cyberpunk 2077's online multiplayer will be dead on arrival, much like Red Dead Redemption 2's multiplayer. If anything the micro-transaction system is dead on PC and console but thrives on mobile devices due to them being actually free on that platform. As it stands right now the most popular micro-transactions are from free games, not paid games. It list of order, ascending order, Fortnite, Candy Crush, Pokemon Go, Roblox, Clash of Clans, Star Wars Galaxy of Heroes, PUBG, Clash Royale, Minecraft, and finally The Sims FreePlay. Of the games I listed only two are games you have to buy. Micro-transacitons belong to free games, not paid games. Any game that tries to incorporate micro-transaction will see a loss in sales, hence why nowadays they're usually part of a online multiplayer feature that's added to a paid single player game later on. There's a reason you don't see a Cyberpunk version of Unreal Tournament or Quake 3, because on it's own it would flop. Fortnite was available as early as 2014 for purchase but it wasn't until it went Free to Play in 2017 with Battle Royal is when it took off in popularity. I'm fairly confident that the micro-transaction model has no future in paid games.
 
Last edited:
northrop said:
While Cyberpunk 2077 will be a single-player RPG, a separate multiplayer release is expected in 2022. Currently codenamed Cyberpunk Multiplayer, the game isn't a multiplayer mode for Cyberpunk 2077, but an entirely separate entity.
Click to expand...
If it still requires the purchase of the single player game then it isn't a separate game. It's a delayed feature from the single player game. From the sounds of it they're releasing the multiplayer in 2022 because it would otherwise delay the release of the single player game.
 
T4rd said:
I know you're being deliberately obtuse here, but that's actually still up in the air at the moment. Either way though, my point stands as the multiplayer side of the game (and its additional paid content) has no effect on the singer player side.
Click to expand...
Ok, so it's not free MP after all, as far as we know. And your point doesn't stand as the MP portion isn't made from thin air, it takes both resources from the SP and it influences design and implementation decisions. They influence each other.
 
T4rd said:
Except that's not the case at all and you're making bad assumptions without any citations to say otherwise.
Click to expand...
So I need to citation my assumptions and you don't?
I this case, with the information given so far and also the good report and precedent CDPR has from previous games, there is no indication that these multiplayer specific add-ons affect the single player side of the game in any capacity.
Click to expand...
Citation needed.
Auer said:
Is there any reason to think it could?
Click to expand...
Because people wouldn't buy them if it didn't give them some sort of advantage in the game? Cosmetic or otherwise you gain something that other people don't have, not through the use of gameplay. They call TF2 a hat simulator not because people enjoy it.

8H5j2Os.gif
 
DukenukemX said:
If it still requires the purchase of the single player game then it isn't a separate game. It's a delayed feature from the single player game. From the sounds of it they're releasing the multiplayer in 2022 because it would otherwise delay the release of the single player game.
Click to expand...

We don't know one way or the other if it requires the SP game or not. I find it hard to imagine a scenario where they require people to own a SP game two years later in order to access the multiplayer. If they're confident in the MP stuff being good and bringing in a good amount of money, then the logical course of action would be to make it stand alone. Their wording seems to lean more towards it not being directly tied to the SP game, but something different. Definitely pulling assets and concepts from the SP game, but maybe not requiring it to be played. Two years is a ways off, so who knows how CDP's plans for this will shake out by then or if this project will even see the light of day.
 
Meeho said:
Ok, so it's not free MP after all, as far as we know. And your point doesn't stand as the MP portion isn't made from thin air, it takes both resources from the SP and it influences design and implementation decisions. They influence each other.
Click to expand...

It could be, as I said that's still up in the air. But yes, my point does still stand, because by your logic their recently announced update (which is also free to existing owners) to Witcher 3 for updated graphics and ray tracing also "influences the design and implementation decisions" because you're assuming they're pulling from the same dev team and had to compromise something from CP2077's single player game in order to develop that Witcher 3 update. That's just a bad assumption on your part, as they can (and probably did) have separate teams working on each side of the game and also they can just keep delaying the game as they already have a few times in order to keep adding content to the game and also have adjustable time constraints if they want to keep delaying the game as well.

They could have just released the game sooner without multiplayer or any additional single player content and we could have got a lesser game for the same amount of money. But by your logic and everyone else giving the kneejerk "fuck micro-transactions and the whole game" reaction, them adding multiplayer to the game with micro-transactions somehow completely negates and ruins the single-player side of the game even if a separate additional dev team are the ones who added it and you disregard the delays and additional time they had to improve the game otherwise.
 
DukenukemX said:
WTF are you on about? Finish reading my post and reply with something relevant.

That's not my or your problem. If game development costs have gone up then do something about it. Charge more money or don't add stupid features like Gwent. Did anyone actually like Gwent in Witcher 3? I sure as shit didn't.

I don't need more information because a micro-transaction is a micro-transaction. You can sugar coat it however you like but if I'm spending real money to buy a digital in game good then that shit is bad.


Or fall into obscurity like Red Dead Redemption 2 multiplayer. Cyberpunk 2077 is a single player game with multiplayer added on. Nobody was going to play it before and micro-transactions means even less people will. This is one of those situations where the success of a game is assumed guaranteed before it even hits store shelves and therefore the developers think they can get away with things like micro-transactions.


GTAV is one of the few single player games that went multiplayer and became largely successful. Probably a bit too successful as GTAV online has casinos as part of their MTX.



Gwent is a free to play game and not one you pay $60 and has micro-transactions. I have no problems with micro-transactions if the game costs nothing but obviously CyperPunk 2077 is not a free game.

I don't have a problem with this, but if you can't find anyone to buy your $250 game then you deal with the losses. Realistically, nobody is going to buy a game above $60 because people aren't earning more money in 2020 compared to 2000.


Because the micro-transaction version has taken away elements of the game and is selling it to you in pieces with a huge mark up. It's not value added but value lost. If the mulitplayer feature is that good then sell is as a separate game. Sell it as Cyperpunk Online for $30 or $20 with micro-transactions and see if people will buy it. I assure you they won't, because even CDPR isn't sure if the multiplayer will take off. But after spending a month playing the game you might be addicted enough to go online.
Click to expand...



yea that was kinda my point. I don't really get upset about this stuff anymore. It seems this only affects multiplayer which i'm ok with.
 
T4rd said:
It could be, as I said that's still up in the air. But yes, my point does still stand, because by your logic their recently announced update (which is also free to existing owners) to Witcher 3 for updated graphics and ray tracing also "influences the design and implementation decisions." That's just a bad assumption on your part, as they can (and probably did) have separate teams working on each side of the game and also they can just keep delaying the game as they already have a few times in order to keep adding content to the game and also have adjustable time constraints if they want to keep delaying the game as well.

They could have just released the game sooner without multiplayer or any additional single player content and we could have got a lesser game for the same amount of money. But by your logic and everyone else giving the kneejerk "fuck micro-transactions and the whole game" reaction, them adding multiplayer to the game with micro-transactions somehow completely negates and ruins the single-player side of the game even if a separate additional dev team are the ones who added it and you disregard the delays and additional time they had to improve the game otherwise.
Click to expand...

There is no MP in Cyberpunk 2077 at launch. This MP project won't be out for, at least, another couple of years.
 
T4rd said:
It could be, as I said that's still up in the air. But yes, my point does still stand, because by your logic their recently announced update (which is also free to existing owners) to Witcher 3 for updated graphics and ray tracing also "influences the design and implementation decisions" because you're assuming they're pulling from the same dev team and had to compromise something from CP2077's single player game in order to develop that Witcher 3 update. That's just a bad assumption on your part, as they can (and probably did) have separate teams working on each side of the game and also they can just keep delaying the game as they already have a few times in order to keep adding content to the game and also have adjustable time constraints if they want to keep delaying the game as well.

They could have just released the game sooner without multiplayer or any additional single player content and we could have got a lesser game for the same amount of money. But by your logic and everyone else giving the kneejerk "fuck micro-transactions and the whole game" reaction, them adding multiplayer to the game with micro-transactions somehow completely negates and ruins the single-player side of the game even if a separate additional dev team are the ones who added it and you disregard the delays and additional time they had to improve the game otherwise.
Click to expand...
I made no judgments on the quality of the single or multiplayer portion, nor on the impact and importance of microtransactions. I just said MP ain't free nor isolated.
 
Meeho said:
I made no judgments on the quality of the single or multiplayer portion, nor on the impact and importance of microtransactions. I just said MP ain't free nor isolated.
Click to expand...

Ok, neither of which is relevant to my point, which still stands; not buying the game for which you're only buying for its single player, because of these multiplayer aspects (which apparently isn't due out anywhere near launch), is stupid.
 
T4rd said:
Ok, neither of which is relevant to my point, which still stands; not buying the game for which you're only buying for its single player, because of these multiplayer aspects, is stupid.
Click to expand...
With the currently little available information, I agree with you.
 
odditory said:
Then CDPR is probably better off just not saying anything about the MP until after the SP is out, because it doesn't matter if they try to qualify it with "We're talking about the FREE MP BTW", since the clickbait industrial complex just latches on to the words "Cyberpunk" and "microtransactions" and runs with it like one of those street monkeys in Bangladesh, splattering it everywhere to confuse and enrage.

Cue 1000 youtube videos: "Cyberpunk will have MICROTRANSACTIONS???" - and all of these asshats making this face:

png-clipart-macaulay-culkin-home-alone-kevin-mccallister-macaulay-culkin-peter-mccallister-hollywood-surprised-woman-child-face.png
Click to expand...
And miss threads like this one? Nahh... this is way too entertaining.

If anything, since the MP is its own entity, they should scrap the "Cyberpunk MP" code name and call it something else. I get why they are using CP MP, after all it's an MP game set in the CP universe, but that ambiguity leads to way too much confusion.
 
aokman said:
Go fuck yourself, was going to get this game, now I’m not touching it on principle alone.

We need to take a hard line against this garbage
Click to expand...
pretty sure it's only for multiplayer. so if that's the only reason you were getting C.P. then yeah, fuck em. think it's cosmetic only tho. idk?
 
aokman said:
So now we pay full price for a game game and only get half of it so they can milk the shit out of the MP side through extra purchases...
Click to expand...
have they been marketing as a multiplayer game before now though?
 
d3athf1sh said:
have they been marketing as a multiplayer game before now though?
Click to expand...
No, why would they? It's a different game. CP2077 is the SP game that's coming out in November. CPMP is a separate game that's scheduled for release in a couple of years. But because the two games share the same theme, it's enough for people to skip on the SP game now... at least that's what I got out of this thread.
 
northrop said:
No, why would they? It's a different game. CP2077 is the SP game that's coming out in November. CPMP is a separate game that's scheduled for release in a couple of years. But because the two games share the same theme, it's enough for people to skip on the SP game now... at least that's what I got out of this thread.
Click to expand...

Why would I read the fucking articles when I could just voice my totally fucking moronic OUTRAAAGE!?!?!
 
northrop said:
And miss threads like this one? Nahh... this is way too entertaining.

If anything, since the MP is its own entity, they should scrap the "Cyberpunk MP" code name and call it something else. I get why they are using CP MP, after all it's an MP game set in the CP universe, but that ambiguity leads to way too much confusion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it desperately needs a new codename. I imagine it'll share assets and stuff from the SP game, so it makes sense to call it "Cyberpunk multiplayer" as an internal codename but they have done a pretty terrible job talking about it in public. They need to give a single, lengthly, detailed, interview about what their plan is, and give it a different public codename. Either that or mention something about it during one of the Night City Wire videos. Something to dispel all the misinformation going around and to give people enough details so we can stop just making assumptions about things.
 
viscountalpha said:
The problem is, game development costs have skyrocketed while the (now initial price) has stayed fairly static.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Projects might be getting increasingly more ambitious, but publishing costs have plummeted. Most distribution is digital now. That means you’re not stamping CDs, printing boxes, manuals, etc, and now that every game company is making their own launcher, they can also cut out retailer profit margins.

Microtransactions are rampant now for one simple reason; they’re hugely profitable. There are plenty of kids willing to spend real money for virtual crap. Me, personally, it doesn’t bother me as long as it isn’t pay to win, but it isn’t an absolute cost-recovery necessity, particularly when they’re already selling you the game for $70.
 
Derangel said:
We don't know one way or the other if it requires the SP game or not. I find it hard to imagine a scenario where they require people to own a SP game two years later in order to access the multiplayer.
Click to expand...
If that's the case then this discussion doesn't need to happen. Then it's about whether or not the MP game itself costs money or is free. Again, if you feel these micro-transactions are something the people would be happy to buy then CDPR should be happy to give the MP game away for free. Right?
If they're confident in the MP stuff being good and bringing in a good amount of money, then the logical course of action would be to make it stand alone.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and let those people pay for the games develop costs and not the single player CyberPunk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top