Analyst Predicts Cyberpunk 2077 Will Launch in Late 2019 & Sell 19 Million Copies
Who knows but I foresee future headlines about lower expectations. Anyway given it's already playable from start to finish like I said before late 2019 is a possible release.Only 19 million? Not a unit more or a unit less ?
Cyberpunk 2077 vs RDR2: We're keeping to the estimation of a debut in Q4 of 2019, with sales of 19 million copies in Q4 alone, and income of 1.9 billion PLN (about 525 million USD). During a conference call, the Board has confirmed that quality remains the absolute highest priority for CD Projekt, and Cyberpunk 2077 will be no less elaborate and polished than RDR2.
For comparison, the sales of RDR2 (gross) was 725 million USD within the first three days after it shipped, 15 million copies within the first eight days, and 17 million copies within the first twelve days (data from Take Two). The game was released only on PS4 and Xbox One consoles. With that in mind, our forecasts for CP2077 seem very reserved - remember the game will be simultaneously both on the consoles [PS4 and XBO] and PC. We also believe that the world of Cyberpunk / sci-fi should be more popular among gamers than the Wild West.
I understand that CDPR have managed to project themselves as Santa Claus in terms of free (albeit meaningless and mostly shallow) DLC
Uhm, yeah, clearly they have managed to pull off this incredible trick where releasing additional quests for free is perceived as something good. I wonder how they managed to do that.
I don't care about free stuff unless the game itself is worth playing.
Now, don't get me wrong - W3 was worth playing. But it doesn't magically become this masterpiece because they release "free stuff" for it.
That's my point.
In that same way, Disney couldn't make me love their super hero movies even if they gave me a new Tesla.
Oh, trust me, they'd have me pretending real good.
Next up: JDR talks about how marketing doesn't affect sales.
Next up from that: Games sell only according to their quality - and not irrelevant factors like public perception of the people making games and how "nice" they appear to be.
Comedy gold!
Always quick with the big words
My point was precisely that people are irrational when they support developers because they're nice - or whatever other nonsense they're telling themselves.
It's emotional manipulation 101. It's no different from a salesman buttering up his client. It has nothing to do with the product or a need for the product.
Now, this isn't unique to CDPR - not by a long shot. In fact, I honestly think some of the lead guys behind CDPR are genuinely nice - at least based on the interviews I've seen.
But that's irrelevant and it should be irrelevant, I think.
Because you're right, the game is NOT better because the developers are nice - and that's the foundation of my argument here.
So, if no one will say W3 was better because CDPR are nice - then what's the rational argument for supporting CDPR a little extra and receiving a little more praise?
I mean, W3 was great (well, I think it was merely good) - it was received very well - and it sold well. Isn't that enough?
As I said, I think it's very much the Hillary factor.
The public perception of companies like EA, Blizzard, Activision and ZeniMax is at an all-time low.
I think we can all agree that's a very pleasant climate for a company like CDPR to project themselves as the anti-corporate type, right?
Well, maybe I'm wrong - who knows.
But that would be my own theory about why CDPR is getting slightly more praise than they deserve.
As in, something isn't better than it is - because something else is complete crap.
While some of it is marketing; one still has to admit that CDPR is offering very good value for a reasonable price - esp when you compare the the milking done by companies like EA, Blizzard, ….
-
As a public company this is not likely to always be the case - but we can hope it lasts a bit longer…
Good value if you enjoy their games, certainly. They've always been priced quite reasonably.
Then again, I never fret too much about price. I guess money just isn't that big a factor in my enjoyment of games.
It can be a factor in terms of how many games I buy that I actually don't need - given my limited time. But in terms of my enjoyment - I will enjoy a good 100$ game a HELL of a lot more than a 1$ mediocre game.
So, for me, money is rarely a factor - unless it's obscene or so cheap that I buy it "just because".
That said, I do understand that modern culture is very focused on money and that free things are apparently more interesting than free time.
That's not at all my own perception, but that's what has allowed the F2P model to flourish - I guess.
Money isn't a factor per sey but I have something against price gouging.
--
One problem with a public company is there is a desire for growth. Most companies reward executives for growth which tends to drive them to execute schemes to increase revenue. If you have 1B revenue and 400M profit that's not good enough you have to then grow to 1.2B the next year to maximize your bonus. Anyway in recent years we seen very profitable games use gimmicks to increase revenue. To me that is gouging and I am oppose to such.
CDProjek shows that a drm free game can be very profitable and their dlc have a lot of reasonable content for a low price (good production value); compare that to some of the garbage EA shovel down our throat with DA:I or even DA:O.
Of course you can argue that CDPR is just as greedy. Maybe they are just sitting in a good niche that lets them seem like they are not greedy, yet still make a nice profit. It may very well be a pure business decision rather than some kind of ethics/belief/whatever. (Probably both is true to some extent, since multiple people are involved. It's not like they did not _try_ another business model. See Gwent.)
From a customer perspective, I do not care. As long as their business model is beneficial for me (no microtransactions, free DLC, no DRM, quality games, etc.) I can't care less for their hidden motivations. Why worry about something that I'll never really know?
I'd even say: if it is a pure business driven decision to act that way: all the better. Because that means it's probably more stable and sustainable. It actually means you can make solid money without scamming your customers (yeah, a bit of hyperbole, don't kill me).