Cyberpunk 2077 - Living City & Seamless Multiplayer

@GamePressure they speculate on the potential features of Cyberpunk 2077. They base this on the list of projects which submitted for grants from the Polish GameINN program. Being speculation nothing is confirmed yet.

CD PROJEKT S.A. - head of the capital group that includes CD PROJEKT RED, developer of Cyberpunk 2077- applied for a grant for something called City Creation, which, according to the official description (as translated from Polish by GamePressure), is "a complex technology for creating a huge living city, playable in real time, which (the technology) is based on rules, AI, and automation, as well as supports innovative processes and tools for making top-notch open-world games."

Another noteworthy feature CD PROJEKT needs extra funds for is Seamless Multiplayer „a complex technology for making unique multiplayer gameplay mechanics, including the ability to search out for opponents, manage game session, replicate objects, as well as support for different game modes along with a unique set of dedicated tools". This type of seamless multiplayer seems similar to what Ubisoft is going to offer in Watch Dogs 2, in which people will be able to join another player's session at any time.
…

More information.

So begins years of information-free yap about Cyberpunk.

Originally Posted by Ripper
So begins years of information-free yap about Cyberpunk.

And when I read multiplayer I hope you are right…

mp?

I understand the market gets bigger with mp but I couldn't care less. Maybe D:OS style to be able to play co-op with a friend, but that's it.

I dont know why people assume that when people say multiplayer it is MMO multiplayer.

The multiplayer tech could easily be related to the Gwent game, and other similar side projects.

If they do decide to turn Cyberpunk into an MMO, I shall, of course, be mailing a deceased rodent to their office

Originally Posted by Damian
I dont know why people assume that when people say multiplayer it is MMO multiplayer.

Because it is.
There is just one difference between MMO and classic multiplayer. And it's can you do multiplayer without logging on some server. MMO doesn't need billions of people to play it, being "mass" is just a plan, but it needs a server and can't be played without it.

If Cyberpunk will be MMO, I'll skippit.

I don't know why they would risk making it mp. TW3 was very successful as a so game. They have to know that they would lose a lot of fans.

Maybe for the same causes others are increasingly making MU the standard.
As the market stands, studios who do not take the train are left behind.

Originally Posted by DarNoor
I don't know why they would risk making it mp. TW3 was very successful as a so game. They have to know that they would lose a lot of fans.

Why would they lose a lot of fans..if it doesn't have a negative impact on SP? This could actually turn out to be good…CP has a lot of competitive factions and player classes are derived from "jobs".
With a strong faction system/economy, it can lend some more meaningful/interesting activities than "let's wreck the hell out of it" GTA style.
If they have well implemented restraints on it.

Originally Posted by Damian
I dont know why people assume that when people say multiplayer it is MMO multiplayer.

Originally Posted by joxer
Because it is.

That depends on the aspect you're looking at.

There is just one difference between MMO and classic multiplayer. And it's can you do multiplayer without logging on some server. MMO doesn't need billions of people to play it, being "mass" is just a plan, but it needs a server and can't be played without it.

That's the technical aspect only and you're refering to a server-client-model in contrary to a peer-to-peer-model. Considering this technical aspect only you may indeed say that MMO and multiplayer is the same if the use the same model.
(Of course the selected model/technology has a huge impact on the influence and general power the developer/publisher has about the gamers and I sympathize about skipping a game that constantly needs a server to be played.)

But we both know that when it comes to gameplay MMO and multiplayer can be two very different pairs of shoes.

If Cyberpunk will be MMO, I'll skippit.

While I'd be sad if CDPR uses its resources for MMO development I'd still buy it if the single player experience will be great. Same with Star Citizen where I'm not at all interested in the MMO but I'm quite interested in Squadron 42.

Don't get surprised. I'm actually very interested in Star Citizen's MMO part.

Regardless of PCgamer and some other silly sites GOTY choice, CDpr holds the #1 spot on the list of the best singleplayer game ever made. Feel free to disagree with me, I don't care.
Someone on such position IMO shouldn't suddenly stop performing heavy rock and turn to gospels just because mainstream media hogwash about importance of SLI/crossfire and other idiocies like pushing irritating useless articles about overhyped garbage Destiny on daily basis.

If CDpr desperately needs a MMO entry aimed to milk masses, they should do what Bethesda did - form a new name to get people confused and create a walking simulator named TWO. And then fail not realizing if there is something you do the best, you should concentrate on that thing instead of wasting talent.

If they do it like watch dogs or dark souls with improved co-op and dedicated servers I'd be all for it.

Also the way they are describing it, it will be nothing like an MMO with mobs of people standing around quest givers or jumping around like lunatics with vulgar name above there heads.

I was hacked in watchdogs. A guy entered my world and was trying to blend in with the NPC's but he was moving a bit suspiciously and I outed him by taking a couple shots at him. He then returned fire and stole a car and took off, I stole a care and pursued him. After a great car chase I cornered him and ended up killing him in a challenging shoot out. It was by far the best moment of the game and I was disappointed not to be hacked again. I had similar experiences in dark souls. It can be very exciting. It should be an option in the settings though to play off line for those that strictly want the single player experience.

This type of MP experience can greatly enhance the gaming experience imo and to just say it's got MP so it's an MMO is very narrow minded.

As to why they would do this? MP is big in the mainstream and CDPR wants mainstream gamers, they want skyrim like sales. It's the same reason they wanted to get on to consoles so bad, to increase their customer base.

Can't wait to see the outrage when they reveal micro transactions.

Originally Posted by joxer
Regardless of PCgamer and some other silly sites GOTY choice, CDpr holds the #1 spot on the list of the best singleplayer game ever made. Feel free to disagree with me, I don't care.

I'd say that for me there is no better SP game than TW3 (including expansions) and it shares its #1 spot with BG2, ME trilogy and DA:O. All of them have their own extra strengths and weaknesses though.

Someone on such position IMO shouldn't suddenly stop performing heavy rock and turn to gospels just because mainstream media hogwash about importance of SLI/crossfire and other idiocies like pushing irritating useless articles about overhyped garbage Destiny on daily basis.

I hear you. I'd really love them to put all their ressources in single player experiences.

There is the theoretical possibility that creating MP components provides a dev so much revenue that ultimately there are more ressources for SP development. Sadly I doubt it practically works out like this.

Originally Posted by sakichop
Can't wait to see the outrage when they reveal micro transactions.

Originally Posted by Morrandir
There is the theoretical possibility that creating MP components provides a dev so much revenue that ultimately there are more ressources for SP development. Sadly I doubt it practically works out like this.

Gwent should be multiplayer (with some sort od campaign included) with microtransactions. For all I know or remembered wrong so correct me if necessary.
Unlike other microtransactionbased cardpacks, here you'll pick one exact card you want and a few more bundled with it will be random. It won't be every card is random with "one rare card guaranteed - who cares if it's your such 10th card".
There is no outrage on this as basically you get what you want plus some bonus stuff - you're not gambling $ on 7256384653585546534756 packs just to get that one damned card.

I have my concerns as others here but i'm pretty sure that the multiplayer will not affect the single-player campaign in anyway. Here's hoping.

Originally Posted by joxer
Gwent should be multiplayer (with some sort od campaign included) with microtransactions. For all I know or remembered wrong so correct me if necessary.
Unlike other microtransactionbased cardpacks, here you'll pick one exact card you want and a few more bundled with it will be random. It won't be every card is random with "one rare card guaranteed - who cares if it's your such 10th card".
There is no outrage on this as basically you get what you want plus some bonus stuff - you're not gambling $ on 7256384653585546534756 packs just to get that one damned card.

Gwent micro transactions ok? But dues ex micro transactions are bad?

I think anyone expecting microtransactions from CDP will be disappointed.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I think anyone expecting microtransactions from CDP will be disappointed.

So gwent doesn't have micro transactions? I don't know I was just going by what Joxer posted.