Cyberpunk 2077 - Will have Microtransactions in Multiplayer

I was just thinking about this a bit more, and the only thing I really have against single player microtransactions (if purely cosmetic), is that it usually means that the game has to be online all the time.

Luckily the online Cyberpunk game is a different game to the single player game. I think if they required being online for Cyberpunk 2077, their specific selling point of being DRM-free would be moot.

Originally Posted by SveNitoR
Who are you talking to?

Magic 8-Ball says she's targeting Joxer. He's well known for his dislike of DLC and Microtransactions. Cyberpunk 2077 will have free DLC & paid expansions.

Cyberpunk 2077 Will Have Free DLC Alongside Paid Expansions - IGN

Cyberpunk 2077 will feature Free DLC as well as paid expansions, CD Projekt Red has revealed.

The Polish developer replied to a fan on Twitter, who asked about the potential for Cyberpunk 2077 to have "free DLC" like The Witcher 3, which offered an entire roadmap of free content to support the game beyond its initial launch.

Responding in kind, CD Projekt Red replied with a gif of the Kool-Aid Man spouting his famous catchphrase.

Beyond the free DLC, it was previously confirmed back in April of 2020 that Cyberpunk 2077 will feature paid expansions of similar size to those that were available for The Witcher 3, such as Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine.

Personally, I'm not too happy about this, because I think it's a step into the wrong direction, but I'm currently willing to avoid any slippery slope argument here because I have some trust in CD Project that they will not introduce this shit into their single player games. Also I do not see the point why it should be bad to trust team A more than team B?

I don't care about multiplayer microtransactions; I'm not particularly bothered by cosmetic microtransactions in single player, either. I don't like them but I'm not going to get pissed off about it.

I do have a problem with non-cosmetic microtransactions in single player games though, even where optional, because it feels like a slippery slope towards pay to win. I can understand why the last Deus Ex game got a lot of flak for allowing people to buy praxis upgrades with real money (which was a real shame as it overshadowed the game).

Originally Posted by Pongo
I don't care about multiplayer microtransactions; I'm not particularly bothered by cosmetic microtransactions in single player, either. I don't like them but I'm not going to get pissed off about it.

I do have a problem with non-cosmetic microtransactions in single player games though, even where optional, because it feels like a slippery slope towards pay to win. I can understand why the last Deus Ex game got a lot of flak for allowing people to buy praxis upgrades with real money (which was a real shame as it overshadowed the game).

I liked the last Deus ex game, and wasn't too bothered with the real money stuff (even though it detracted from the immersion).

Didn't also the last third person Mordor game (can't remember the name right now) also have this, which made the game very grindy when not buying stuff with real money? And didn't they remove it due to criticism?

Originally Posted by Irian
Personally, I'm not too happy about this, because I think it's a step into the wrong direction, but I'm currently willing to avoid any slippery slope argument here because I have some trust in CD Project that they will not introduce this shit into their single player games. Also I do not see the point why it should be bad to trust team A more than team B?

Yeah, the slippery slope argument, isn't a very good argument at all. Things can get worse, they can get better and they can stay about the same. We'll just have to wait and see (and express out opinion about it).

I think there's a case to be made about server infrastructure cost needing to be covered in multiplayer games, which makes continuous income important. Subscriptions or microtransactions are understandable to me in that light.

I also understand why some developers/publishers decide to incorporate it in single player games (increasingly expensive game development = needs more income). But I don't like it, since the game needs to be at least partly designed around it.

Smaller developers can often release "support the dev cosmetic dlc", but I doubt the income would be enough for bigger guys like CDPR. And a lot of people also wouldn't buy it since it would seem weird that a big developer asks for extra monetary support.

Luckily they don't do that for this game, and I hope they keep doing it the way I like it in the future as well.

Yeah, so they'll make a GTA Online kind of game. So what? It's no big drama…I never tried GTA Online but might give a try for that one.

I agree with Sir Potato. CDPR likely goes to the giant category with this release, but Rockstar or Bethesda would be better comparisons than Bioware. Oh well, either they'll have to branch or we'll be waiting for the next game for 10 years. Online business seems both lucrative and time-consuming…

The one thing I don't like about GTA Online is that you don't get the same stuff in Single Player. I have absolutely no need for other players in my GTA, but some of the online stuff is nice ;-)

Originally Posted by SveNitoR
Who are you talking to?

Kinda pointless to name and shame. If you feel addressed, chances are I'm talking about you. If you don't, chances are I'm not.

Some of the hypocrites have already made their presence in this thread, so if that's what you're fishing for, no, they're not mythical unexistant theoretical people of the internet, they're real and tangible.

Originally Posted by SveNitoR
It seems like it happens to every publicly traded gaming company once it gets large enough. Outside stock holders see how much other companies make and demand higher profits.

If one needs to satisfy stock holders with new revenue streams, at least make it suck less CDPR and keep it away from single player games.

I think that's exactly right. A lot of people that run smaller enterprises often do it out of a genuine interest in the thing they're doing. They want to turn a solid profit, but that's just part of the consideration.

Once you get into multi-billion, publicly-traded territory, a different mindset (and often different people) takes over, and the pursuit of profit becomes almighty, often with detrimentally short-term thinking. Folks are going to want to see their games-as-a-service money, or they'll put someone else at the top who will deliver. I'll be surprised if CDPR manages to avoid going down that road sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Nereida
Kinda pointless to name and shame. If you feel addressed, chances are I'm talking about you. If you don't, chances are I'm not.

Some of the hypocrites have already made their presence in this thread, so if that's what you're fishing for, no, they're not mythical unexistant theoretical people of the internet, they're real and tangible.

Nah, I'm not fishing for anything like that, just not a fan of accusations aimed at someone nonspecific. People can feel addressed without having done anything and that makes it kind of a shotgun blast to hit a narrow target.

Why not just send a pm instead?

Originally Posted by SveNitoR
Nah, I'm not fishing for anything like that, just not a fan of accusations aimed at someone nonspecific. People can feel addressed without having done anything and that makes it kind of a shotgun blast to hit a narrow target.

Why not just send a pm instead?

Cus I'm not interested in that kind of interaction, but people with convenient moralities should feel at least a little bad about it now and then.

Also, don't wanna derail the thread.

To reinforce my point on the topic, as others in this thread I'm fine with the MP microtransactions since I won't play that game mode.

As for single player microtransactions, they don't bother me either, even the so-called pay-to-win. Pay to win what exactly, the special Olympics of gamers? You're not competing against anyone, or getting any recognition from anyone for it. Pay to win only has relevance in a multiplayer frame.

I see the issue if a game is purposely and obnoxiously grindy or difficult and you need to pay to have a real chance at defeating some encounters or level at a decent pace, but who would play a game with such shit design? They'd be shooting their own foot. Assassin Creed did something similar, but the game's difficulty wasn't extreme, neither I found it to be grindy so if people wanna pay to skip through the game, whatever. In my eyes, they're paying to have less fun and it doesn't affect me or my own ability to enjoy the game.

I definitely won't play any multiplayer game that gives any inkling of an advantage to players who pay more over those who just purchase the game at base box price, but that's not the case with CP2077, since again, single player.

Originally Posted by Ripper
Once you get into multi-billion, publicly-traded territory, a different mindset (and often different people) takes over, and the pursuit of profit becomes almighty, often with detrimentally short-term thinking. Folks are going to want to see their games-as-a-service money, or they'll put someone else at the top who will deliver. I'll be surprised if CDPR manages to avoid going down that road sooner or later.

Kind of ironic that you're speculating about a company that will deliver the long-awaited Cyberpunk computer game

Originally Posted by largh
Kind of ironic that you're speculating about a company that will deliver the long-awaited Cyberpunk computer game

You mean the irony of the game being essentially about a corporatist dystopia?

Originally Posted by Ripper
You mean the irony of the game being essentially about a corporatist dystopia?

Sounds like an original topic to make a show, movie or game about.

re: if CD Projekt might turn into a soulless profit-at-all-costs game developer.
Yea it might happen some day, but that is just a waste of time to speculate about, IMHO. I think that is also an overly pessimistic "all pc gaming is heading towards destruction!" type attitude. Is every successful gaming company going to turn into a no integrity and money grubbing EA type gigantic games developer/corporation? No, some will still retain a semblance of integrity, in my opinion.

It might just be a good corner of the market to actually help their profits as well. Example - "Yea, that other company has a terrible reputation with gamers, please check our games out and come buy our games, we respect gamers and will give you a better deal!"

Why is Amazon such a humongous company and worldwide influence in multiple markets? Because they have always maintained outstanding customer service and that is one of the things they have always been very good at doing. (say what you will about their working conditions, bad influence on local stores, putting many out of business and so on, but I have always been very impressed with their overall customer experience, such as free returns, no questions asked type service when wanting my money back on an item, free shipping, etc.)

Originally Posted by Arkadia7
re: if CD Projekt might turn into a soulless profit-at-all-costs game developer.
Yea it might happen some day, but that is just a waste of time to speculate about, IMHO. I think that is also an overly pessimistic "all pc gaming is heading towards destruction!" type attitude. Is every successful gaming company going to turn into a no integrity and money grubbing EA type gigantic games developer/corporation? No, some will still retain a semblance of integrity, in my opinion.

…

Why is Amazon such a humongous company and worldwide influence in multiple markets? Because they have always maintained outstanding customer service and that is one of the things they have always been very good at doing.

Well, the point I was making had nothing to do with "all pc gaming is heading towards destruction". I'm just talking about the general company lifecycle, and that, as the corporation becomes very large, the system encourages a different kind of thinking. I think that's a pattern that is easy to observe. It doesn't mean it's inevitable, and slippery slope arguments are not conclusive. But one can say that when you have a slope, and it's slippery, things have a tendency to slide down it. So it's not really about pointless speculation, as about pointing out what tends to happen.

As for Amazon's customer service - I must have dealt with another Amazon! No phone number to call, and each email in a chain was followed up by a different person that could barely write English, and had no idea about any of the previous conversation. Then, when I tried to explain it again, someone else would reply, and we'd start over. By far the most frustrating customer service I ever dealt with, and that was before I abandoned them for the awful way they treat people. Not a great example of a corporation avoiding going to the Bad Place, IMO.

As a single player aficionado they can fill the multiplayer with MTX if it makes them money. As long as that money is invested in even more single player games I'm not bothered, let's just wait and see instead of jumping on the EA/Ubisoft bandwagon.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt till proven otherwise.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I don't recall ME: Andromeda catching flak for having microtransactions as much as it did for simply being a disappointing game to a lot of people.

I didn't even remember that it had microtransactions.

Any game that has them, but only from the main menu, that doesn't affect or bother me at all. I remember the most recent Deus Ex having those, and I remember some outrage about them. But the game didn't need them, didn't incorporate them into the game itself, so they didn't bother me in the slightest.

The truth is that some people, a significant number of people, are not only okay with microtransactions but they actually want them in their games. They must, or stuff like that (real money paid for in game currency/resources you could just as easily earn in the actual game) wouldn't exist. If they get what they want, the company gets some money for providing them, and their existence doesn't affect my own game at all, I don't see any reason to get upset about that.

In game microtransactions are a different story. Content parceled off behind a paywall, different story. But the slippery slope theory on that hasn't come true in years now. If it ever does, I'll be upset. But I'll save that anger for when and if that actually happens.

Originally Posted by JFarrell71
Any game that has them, but only from the main menu, that doesn't affect or bother me at all. I remember the most recent Deus Ex having those, and I remember some outrage about them. But the game didn't need them, didn't incorporate them into the game itself, so they didn't bother me in the slightest.

Yeah, I see those kind of "microtransactions" similar to "Deluxe" or "Collectors Editions" with only digital goodies. If someone wants to support the developers and pay extra for the game, fine with me. Why don't people rage about Deluxe editions? Pretty much every game seems to have those in Steam.