Don't know what people are complaining about. Should this game be fixed more? Yes, definitely. Is that possible in 2 months since the last patch? No.
If they are indeed still working on this, the most likely approach is similar to NMS or FF14, where they keep doing smaller hotfixes to remedy issues while working on larger updates in the background. That will also given them an opportunity for another marketing campaign. No (commercial) use in trickling out the improvements with every patch, when a "mega-update" in 1 year could be used as a relaunch.
Anybody who expects any major fixes with one of the normal patches is just delusional.
(Disclaimer: I am not saying any of the above will happen, but it is simply the most likely explaination).
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
- Albert Camus
Isn't that a standard release now? broken shit and patch it for 5 years until playable?
no. what games have you been playing ? Cyberpunk was released at least 1 year too early, judging by how things are progressing since launch. This is not normal at all
Fallout 76, NMS, Wasteland 3, ME:A, D3, SimCity actually anything published by EA, Alient: Colonial Derp, Underworl Ascendent (yergh), Ark, Crysis remaster etc.
Spoiler:
nah, i skipped over these because of they were broken when released.
truth be told i probably only play one game year these days, and of that game a lot of the time its 20 years old. I did buy this game though and I didn't mind it, its a linear game set in an open-world that doesn't work, if your looking for GTA you will be severely disappointed in this title.
Doesn't mean the linear campaign and showcase of graphics isn't impressive and enjoyable. This game was it for AAA's for me though, the only other awesome modern game i've completed in a while was Bloodstained (which apparently had a bad launch).
Fallout 76, NMS, Wasteland 3, ME:A, D3, SimCity actually anything published by EA, Alient: Colonial Derp, Underworl Ascendent (yergh), Ark, Crysis remaster etc.
Spoiler:
nah, i skipped over these because of they were broken when released.
truth be told i probably only play one game year these days, and of that game a lot of the time its 20 years old. I did buy this game though and I didn't mind it, its a linear game set in an open-world that doesn't work, if your looking for GTA you will be severely disappointed in this title.
Doesn't mean the linear campaign and showcase of graphics isn't impressive and enjoyable. This game was it for AAA's for me though, the only other awesome modern game i've completed in a while was Bloodstained (which apparently had a bad launch).
yes, you are right. Most of the games even if not marked as "early access" they tend to put new features in, and of course patch out even really serious bugs.
so they built in a bugfixing AI. Whenever our new smart AI detects a bug in the game, it quickly corrects it, so while you still experience bugs it will only be there for a few seconds...
Weird how different peoples experiences can be.
I finished it at launch, first 50-60% were almost bug free( some minor graphic and physics glitches, but nothing that affected play).
Had a bit more at the end, some voiceovers that didn't play for a couple of lines, some graphic glitches in cutscenes.
Had 1 instance i had to reload because a character disappeared mid quest( drove away before he could enter another car, it autosaved at the right point so took me 2 minutes to fix) and 1 sidequest that didn't start. And thats it. Think i had around 60 hours playtime.
Me too. Had weird glitched every minute but game breaking bugs were only 2 for 80-90 hours. And that's when I go everywhere and try to reach every place, even climbing to the highest points of buildings and trying to finish missions in different ways (the first mission with Jackie couldn't progress when I didn't wait for him and instead solo stealth killed everyone). And I liked the game. Had fun shooting, stealthing, quckhacking and exploring. Sure, it doesn't really do anything new and special in those but the vertical approach is still something unique to games.
Tho perhaps I would've hated it like I did with Witcher 3, if I was too hyped. Instead I expected to be disappointed.
Me too. Had weird glitched every minute but game breaking bugs were only 2 for 80-90 hours.
same here ultimately gamebreaking wise i had much bigger problems with AC Valhalla than with CP . Yes there is occasionally silly bad animation , but most of the time i had like 2 CTDs and 1 questbug that only required restart to fix here in CP77. With Valhalla it was hitting qurst bugs quite often , also doesnt help that Ubi likes to broke the game every other patch
I guess you've all been very lucky, what can we say That, or you were able to overlook them.
Had an awful string of bugs (nothing like crash, but a shit ton of completely immersion-breaking visual/audio bugs) after 20 minutes within the game, didn't get nearly as lucky.
R5 5600X - 3070FE - 16GB DDR4 3600 - Asus B550 TUF Gaming Plus - BeQuiet Straight Power 11 750W - Pure Base 500DX
Some people played at a pace where patches came before they reached some critical points
I played all day every day at launch and the worst bugs I encountered were not being able to progress the Panam story because entering the car (her car?) with her didn't trigger something (had to load an older savegame)
and of course pedestrian cars being on a rail that crashed them straight into some walls
"omg playable beta build of cyberpunk discovered check this out!"
*starts the game without the day 1 patch*
wow. ok
am I missing something here?
Probably missed all the original drama surrounding the broken embargo and streamers playing the pre-day 1 patch version, as such probably thinks he's discovered something new.
It's very doubtful that further funding will go into fixing the issues with the game after the disastrous failure:
Quote:
Cyberpunk 2077's developer CD Projekt took a 64% loss in net profit during Q1, citing the game's major launch issues as the main cause. And even that news came just a few weeks after it was learned that CD Projekt lost over $2 million due to refunds alone.
...
Piotr Nielubowicz, CD Projekt's chief financial officer, said in a statement that, "Lower than usual net profitability is mainly due to continuing depreciation of Cyberpunk 2077 development expenditures, work on updating the game," but also cited ongoing research for future projects as another factor. Back in March, CD Projekt released the 44GB, patch 1.2 for Cyberpunk 2077, which fixed over 500 issues and apparently raised costs by 79.6% ($16,921,040 USD), according to Reuters.
A 44GB patch that cost ~17 million dollars? Meanwhile the game is sold as a budget title at ~€20 or so. That won't change since the damage is already done. They should just make it more easy to script/mod the game in hopes of fans/visionaries turning it into a classic.
Every patch and update that they've released and will release are developed at a loss. I don't think they CAN fix the game as a whole since we're not just talking about bugs that can be fixed "relatively easy"; we're talking about certain game design choices that doesn't work as well as feature creep that made the team lose focus on the core experience etc. etc.
Don't worry they will release Witcher GO for mobiles and the company is saved. The stock price is on the rise.
sar·casm | \ ˈsär-ˌka-zəm \
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
b: the use or language of sarcasm
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
That, or you were able to overlook them.
