Cyberpunk 2077 Patch Notes (1.3) Released, Contains Enormous List of Fixes and Three Free DLC Packs

[Grimlakin]

Our issue is multi fold... and it's because gaming isn't just game sales any more.

All of our actions in games are tracked. The publishers/developers are collecting meta data on how often we play, what we play, how long we play it, and what activities we engage in within the game itself. If the game crashes, what we were doing when it crashed and so on. All of this is being collected about us the consumers so they can better target the next game/item/thing/service to us.

99% of the customers out there don't even think about this.

For an example. Why if I am playing a single player game does it require internet connectivity and is sending packets of data in a bursty method as I play?

Some say it is to enrich the gaming experience. And to some degree that is a truth.

But in other ways it's simply to better construct a wheel that the human hamsters enjoy running in.

Watch the Matrix and see how the AI did it then... if they were to do it again they could construct worlds so addictive, so engaging that even if we KNEW they were fake we would choose them over reality. Some few holdouts would exist... but man. Think about the worlds they could create... and if someone wasn't happy with it let them play a perfectly addictive game. Problem solved. the inception of digital slavery.

Wow WTF did that tangent come from.... ah well I enjoyed it.

 

[Dan_D]

I agree with you, but at the same time I feel like we have been complaining about broken games at launch and how people should never pre-order games for over a decade now.

Is it just one of those things that keeps getting worse, and we over time get used to the awful state of things in 2008-2010 only because 2021 is so much worse?

It's more than that. It's due to several factors matter of game development becoming more complex, more expensive and taking far longer than it used to. The internet and the proliferation of broadband has allowed developers far more leeway to release a product and fix it later. It's also led to developer / customer communication which allows for feedback. This is a double-edged sword as CDPR has learned. Things like death threats for not releasing a game on time is one example of this.

The other problem comes down to sheer corporate greed. You have the EA's and Activisions of the world who are buying up everything and are held accountable to their share holders. Hence the drive to meet impossible time tables to release these games as soon as possible. 20GB+ day one patches wouldn't have been acceptable in 2005, but these days we've come to expect it. Nearly every developer gets away with this because we let them. We are desensitized to it now. To be fair, it's rarely a big deal as I can download 50GB in less than 20 minutes. With digital distribution and game preloading, a day one patch download is faster than traditional game installations.

But this method allows companies like CDPR to continue working on a game even after a game has gone gold for the consoles. Beyond that, companies want to make life style products that keep you coming back every day, every week and year after year. World of Warcraft showed the industry that subscription models were the wave of the future. Games that couldn't pull that off did well with microtransactions. The idea being that companies need to hook you on a live service and milk you not once, not twice, but dozens of times.

Live service games have changed the landscape. Now it's acceptable to play something while it's being improved. It also allows companies the ability to take customer feedback and tailor them to their customers in order to reap more profit. At this point game companies don't need to release a complete game. They can release a base framework and update it as they go. In fact, it makes more sense to do it that way than to give you a complete experience out of the gate.

This isn't going to change anytime soon if ever. It's only going to get worse. CDPR wanted to make Cyberpunk 2077 the next GTA online. Their problem was that they tried to move too fast and didn't have near the staff to produce the game fast enough to make such a thing work. They underestimated the scope of the project and it shows.

 

[Zarathustra]

It's more than that. It's due to several factors matter of game development becoming more complex, more expensive and taking far longer than it used to. The internet and the proliferation of broadband has allowed developers far more leeway to release a product and fix it later. It's also led to developer / customer communication which allows for feedback. This is a double-edged sword as CDPR has learned. Things like death threats for not releasing a game on time is one example of this.

The other problem comes down to sheer corporate greed. You have the EA's and Activisions of the world who are buying up everything and are held accountable to their share holders. Hence the drive to meet impossible time tables to release these games as soon as possible. 20GB+ day one patches wouldn't have been acceptable in 2005, but these days we've come to expect it. Nearly every developer gets away with this because we let them. We are desensitized to it now. To be fair, it's rarely a big deal as I can download 50GB in less than 20 minutes. With digital distribution and game preloading, a day one patch download is faster than traditional game installations.

But this method allows companies like CDPR to continue working on a game even after a game has gone gold for the consoles. Beyond that, companies want to make life style products that keep you coming back every day, every week and year after year. World of Warcraft showed the industry that subscription models were the wave of the future. Games that couldn't pull that off did well with microtransactions. The idea being that companies need to hook you on a live service and milk you not once, not twice, but dozens of times.

Live service games have changed the landscape. Now it's acceptable to play something while it's being improved. It also allows companies the ability to take customer feedback and tailor them to their customers in order to reap more profit. At this point game companies don't need to release a complete game. They can release a base framework and update it as they go. In fact, it makes more sense to do it that way than to give you a complete experience out of the gate.

This isn't going to change anytime soon if ever. It's only going to get worse. CDPR wanted to make Cyberpunk 2077 the next GTA online. Their problem was that they tried to move too fast and didn't have near the staff to produce the game fast enough to make such a thing work. They underestimated the scope of the project and it shows.

The question is how long CDPR continues to dump developer time and money into the game. At this rate all the most annoying bugs may get fixed in time, if they only keep at it. There are some people like me, holding off for it to be fixed before buying, but we are also expecting sales and not to pay the new price. At this point their continued development is probably more in defense of their reputation as a developer, and less for any actual income they may receive, and that only goes so far...

 

[Dan_D]

The question is how long CDPR continues to dump developer time and money into the game. At this rate all the most annoying bugs may get fixed in time, if they only keep at it. There are some people like me, holding off for it to be fixed before buying, but we are also expecting sales and not to pay the new price. At this point their continued development is probably more in defense of their reputation as a developer, and less for any actual income they may receive, and that only goes so far...

In terms of bug fixes the game is in a fairly good state. It's still got problems but it's really in decent shape now. The more unfortunate aspect of it are the game play elements not implemented properly or finished. A lot of this seems to be what people are more pissed about than the bugs. The truth is a lot of the bugs don't occur to everyone. I know very few on those lists occurred in my four playthroughs or so. Certainly nothing game breaking.

Unfortunately, I think that CDPR will never bother to give us water or fire physics, a decent police system or the animations that should go along with interactions with the environment. All things that were promised initially that would elevate the game beyond its peers. At this point the only thing "innovative" is that it's prettier than most games and features an aesthetic and genre not normally all that common to games.

I do believe CDPR will continue to pour money into the game for the next couple of years. CDPR is going to spend some money on repairing its reputation but mostly, if they don't no one is going to buy their paid DLC's for the game. The company wants Cyberpunk 2077 to sell for years to come and putting money into it is the only way that's going to happen. I just don't think they'll ever go back and make it the game it was originally intended to be.

 

[Grimlakin]

What they want to do is repair Cyberpunk 2077 to the point that it is lauded similar to a no mans sky reversal. once they do that then they can launch the online game that they can monetize with microtransactions for long term income.

 

[Dan_D]

What they want to do is repair Cyberpunk 2077 to the point that it is lauded similar to a no mans sky reversal. once they do that then they can launch the online game that they can monetize with microtransactions for long term income.

Except that multiplayer for Cyberpunk 2077 was cancelled due to the game's poor reception and comments from the fans who simply weren't interested in a multiplayer game from CDPR.

 

[Grimlakin]

Except that multiplayer for Cyberpunk 2077 was cancelled due to the game's poor reception and comments from the fans who simply weren't interested in a multiplayer game from CDPR.

Well clearly I missed that news item. Interesting. Lets see if they pull an EA like with Anthem. Or if they stick to it and make Cyberpunk 2077 the game it's supposed to be.

 

[Dan_D]

Well clearly I missed that news item. Interesting. Lets see if they pull an EA like with Anthem. Or if they stick to it and make Cyberpunk 2077 the game it's supposed to be.

It seems clear that the original intent was to create a Cyberpunk 2077 GTA online like experience, but like the basic game itself, they underestimated the scope of such a project.

 

[MadMummy76]

Except that multiplayer for Cyberpunk 2077 was cancelled

Really? When did that happen? Must have done it quietly as I don't recall this either. Can't say I'm sorry about it.

 

[Denpepe]

Really? When did that happen? Must have done it quietly as I don't recall this either. Can't say I'm sorry about it.

Well it's cancelled as in it wont be added to the game but there will be a seperate multillayer game eventually but this one might still be years out Cyberpunk 2077 Multiplayer Will Be A 'Completely Separate Production' | GGRecon

 

[MadMummy76]

But this method allows companies like CDPR to continue working on a game even after a game has gone gold for the consoles. Beyond that, companies want to make life style products that keep you coming back every day, every week and year after year. World of Warcraft showed the industry that subscription models were the wave of the future. Games that couldn't pull that off did well with microtransactions. The idea being that companies need to hook you on a live service and milk you not once, not twice, but dozens of times.

I think they are missing one very important factor. Not all gamers are down with subscription models and live service games with microtransactions. So if that is all they are making they are leaving a big chunk of the market on the table. It has been proven time and time again that there is huge demand for classic single player games. While live services like anthem are always hit or miss. Maybe you can make more money in the long term with a live service game, but a single player game is a guaranteed success if you don't make an absolute blunder of the launch like in case of ME:Andromeda. I think that was a marketing blunder not purely the game's fault.

Live service games have changed the landscape. Now it's acceptable to play something while it's being improved. It also allows companies the ability to take customer feedback and tailor them to their customers in order to reap more profit. At this point game companies don't need to release a complete game. They can release a base framework and update it as they go. In fact, it makes more sense to do it that way than to give you a complete experience out of the gate.

It makes no sense to me. Why would I want to play an incomplete game? All it does is ruins the experience. By the time it is completed you get tired of the game and can't even enjoy the full experience.

Live service games are a plague and they need to die outside of purely multiplayer titles.

 

[DrezKill]

Not all gamers are down with subscription models and live service games with microtransactions.

THIS.

It has been proven time and time again that there is huge demand for classic single player games.

Also this.

It makes no sense to me. Why would I want to play an incomplete game?

Same here. I also don't want to pay for an incomplete game.

Live service games are a plague and they need to die outside of purely multiplayer titles.

Been feeling that way myself over the last several years. I'm all for fixing bugs and incorporating feedback to improve games once they've been out, but the games should NOT be released incomplete with that expectation in mind.

 

[Dan_D]

I think they are missing one very important factor. Not all gamers are down with subscription models and live service games with microtransactions. So if that is all they are making they are leaving a big chunk of the market on the table. It has been proven time and time again that there is huge demand for classic single player games. While live services like anthem are always hit or miss. Maybe you can make more money in the long term with a live service game, but a single player game is a guaranteed success if you don't make an absolute blunder of the launch like in case of ME:Andromeda. I think that was a marketing blunder not purely the game's fault.


It makes no sense to me. Why would I want to play an incomplete game? All it does is ruins the experience. By the time it is completed you get tired of the game and can't even enjoy the full experience.

Live service games are a plague and they need to die outside of purely multiplayer titles.

Except that live service models and microtransactions make developers and publishers considerably more money than single player games do. This has been proven time and time again with microtransaction sales eclipsing the games themselves. EA makes most of its revenue from microtransactions and DLC's. We may not always like what these developers are doing but the fact is that their tactics work on a lot of people. Perhaps even most of them. Just because you and I see live service games for what they are doesn't mean that others do.

 

[Grimlakin]

another thing is as I get older especially games live longer in my mind. I've been playing AC Valhalla since release. Taking my time enjoying the game. I'm glad there are another two expansions coming... that I will probably have to put down money for because I get the hours of playtime I expect out of the money spent.

I'm an odd cookie there... I'll play and pay for an MMO experience but a free to play with Microtransactions steers me away...

I'd prefer a subscription model because I can be more assured less trolls playing the game.

 

[MadMummy76]

Except that live service models and microtransactions make developers and publishers considerably more money than single player games do.

IF they don't fail, and that is a big if.

This has been proven time and time again with microtransaction sales eclipsing the games themselves. EA makes most of its revenue from microtransactions and DLC's.

There is more money to be made in banking, but we can't have everyone be bankers. Same way we can't have every game developer making live service games.

We may not always like what these developers are doing but the fact is that their tactics work on a lot of people. Perhaps even most of them. Just because you and I see live service games for what they are doesn't mean that others do.

We have seen plenty of live service games not being profitable, so I don't share that view. Anthem, apparently Outriders, and the only reason I can't list more is because I don't follow these types of games. The few games that become money printers are the exception to the rule, not the rule.

 

[Dan_D]

IF they don't fail, and that is a big if.

There is more money to be made in banking, but we can't have everyone be bankers. Same way we can't have every game developer making live service games.

We have seen plenty of live service games not being profitable, so I don't share that view. Anthem, apparently Outriders, and the only reason I can't list more is because I don't follow these types of games. The few games that become money printers are the exception to the rule, not the rule.

Unfortunately, a lot of companies think they can duplicate the success of the more popular live service games. Many people believe it's the future of the industry. That's why so many try. Several of them fail simply because they often fail to become good games at their core. If you can do that you can monetize it. If you don't, you won't succeed. Also, these live service games like Fortnight, Destiny 2, etc. are easier to make than single player games like Cyberpunk 2077 are.

The only time companies pull back from the lure of live service games is when their customers flat tell them not to go down that path. EA/BioWare was trying to go down that path with Mass Effect and Dragon Age and were flatly told by their customers not to do it. It's the same thing with Cyberpunk 2077. The customer base has told them in no uncertain terms that they don't need another live service or multiplayer game from them.

 

[Zarathustra]

Except that live service models and microtransactions make developers and publishers considerably more money than single player games do. This has been proven time and time again with microtransaction sales eclipsing the games themselves. EA makes most of its revenue from microtransactions and DLC's. We may not always like what these developers are doing but the fact is that their tactics work on a lot of people. Perhaps even most of them. Just because you and I see live service games for what they are doesn't mean that others do.

Honestly, there is something seriously wrong with a person willing to pay real money for a virtual outfit for a character in a game.

We shouldn't be pretending that this is normal or OK.

 

[Brian_B]

Honestly, there is something seriously wrong with a person willing to pay real money for a virtual outfit for a character in a game.

We shouldn't be pretending that this is normal or OK.

I can not upvote this comment enough.

Sadly, my son completely disagrees and would blow his entire bank account on Fortnite Skins.

I don't get it. I've failed as a parent.

 

[MadMummy76]

Honestly, there is something seriously wrong with a person willing to pay real money for a virtual outfit for a character in a game.

We shouldn't be pretending that this is normal or OK.

Cool skins used to be in-game rewards for progression and exploration. Now it's the privilege of the rich. (or careless)

 

[Burticus]

I like that CDPR is still making updates and I assume there will eventually be real DLC missions or some such available. I will wait for more content before I re-roll and start over. Assuming Stadia is still around years from now or whenever that happens.

Or I could go buy a PS4 copy for $10 and wait for the eventual PS5 patches