Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

No MTX in Cyberpunk 2077 after all

2»

Comments

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,341
    Rhoklaw said:
    Gdemami said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    No, the whole F2P + cash shop is simply a way for companies to make MORE than what they actually need. 
    ...so how much money companies need?
    The better question should be, so how much are customers willing to pay? Bottom line is always supply and demand to determine the value of anything. Of course, you can add variables to the equation, such as how stupid are your customers and can you manipulate them by making them think they are getting a really good deal, when in actuality, you're robbing them blind.

    We can sit here and say, that game companies in no way manipulate their customers. So, the question remains, why would they choose F2P + cash shop versus a subscription? The answer is simple, because they make more money. As I said, game companies still make a profit with flat service fee or a subscription. The whole point of F2P + cash shop isn't about making enough, it's about making maximum profits AT the expense of either fair gameplay ( P2W ) or inconveniences ( pay walls ).
    The problem with that is the market bares clear evidence of subscription fatigue. The vast majority of the market have turned their backs on the sub model in gaming. 
    A free to play with microtrans (or in this case B2P with microtrans) makes more fiscal sense as it allows for a lower barrier to entry for the consumer allowing for the opportunity for a higher chance of a better ROI on the title. 

    it not low entry cost they care, is the maximum return, with people paying over 1k month on f2p games, why keep a sub?just think if all player in a game, half pay premium and around 100 pay over 1k month, without considerating the ones who spend 10k in a single play to buy everythingit give more return, plus in games like these who tend to have a low retention rate, is nice for then ahve new blood to milk or just to be a sacrifice lamb for higher paying players
    Yet we are talking about Cyberpunk which is not an mmorpg. It is a singleplayer game with a added on multiplayer component. Why would gamers sub to an online mode for a game like that? 
    Personally I would see the level of content available hard to justify with a sub for a multiplayer game like this that is not an mmorpg. 

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,172
    Rhoklaw said:
    The better question should be
    ...
    As I said, game companies still make a profit with flat service fee or a subscription
    ...it shouldn't since it is completely unrelated to your previous comment and what I have questioned you.

    Do they? I guess I have to take your word for it, right...?
    rpmcmurphy
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,172
    it not low entry cost they care
    ...if they do not care, they would just keep subs and added cash shop.

    But hey...w/e convulted 'reasoning' flies your boat, heh?
    rpmcmurphy
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,391
    My interest in the multiplayer part of Cyberpunk is somewhere south of zero. Just take my money and give me the single player game already.

    I guess we shall see how they monetize multiplayer for those of you who want that when they do it.
    TorvalTimukas
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 7,124
    Rhoklaw said:
    Gdemami said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    No, the whole F2P + cash shop is simply a way for companies to make MORE than what they actually need. 
    ...so how much money companies need?
    The better question should be, so how much are customers willing to pay? Bottom line is always supply and demand to determine the value of anything. Of course, you can add variables to the equation, such as how stupid are your customers and can you manipulate them by making them think they are getting a really good deal, when in actuality, you're robbing them blind.

    We can sit here and say, that game companies in no way manipulate their customers. So, the question remains, why would they choose F2P + cash shop versus a subscription? The answer is simple, because they make more money. As I said, game companies still make a profit with flat service fee or a subscription. The whole point of F2P + cash shop isn't about making enough, it's about making maximum profits AT the expense of either fair gameplay ( P2W ) or inconveniences ( pay walls ).
    The problem with that is the market bares clear evidence of subscription fatigue. The vast majority of the market have turned their backs on the sub model in gaming. 
    A free to play with microtrans (or in this case B2P with microtrans) makes more fiscal sense as it allows for a lower barrier to entry for the consumer allowing for the opportunity for a higher chance of a better ROI on the title. 

    Which is why I said people are stupid and easily manipulated. They get fooled into thinking, oh look, a free to play game. Then they start playing it only to realize either 80% of the game is locked behind a cash shop pay wall, thus not even close to a F2P game or if it's a PvP game, pretty much guaranteed to see P2W items. At best, I'd be willing to call most F2P games for that they really are, which is Free to Trial. Eventually people will need to spend money and that amount will certainly surpass $15 a month on average. Not to mention, game companies are not going to use a monetization method that makes them LESS money. I'm not entirely sure why it's so hard to understand.
    Gdemami

  • NycteliosNyctelios Member EpicPosts: 3,815
    I trust CDPR.

    It is the way.
    blueturtle13
    Steam ID Discord ID: Night # 6102 - GoG ID - 

    Current playing: 
    Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn - Shadowbringers; EvE Online

    "There is a fine line between consideration and hesitation. The former is wisdom, the latter is fear." Izaro Phrecius, Holy Emperor of the Eternal Empire, Last of Royal Phrecius Family.
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,341
    edited November 2019
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Gdemami said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    No, the whole F2P + cash shop is simply a way for companies to make MORE than what they actually need. 
    ...so how much money companies need?
    The better question should be, so how much are customers willing to pay? Bottom line is always supply and demand to determine the value of anything. Of course, you can add variables to the equation, such as how stupid are your customers and can you manipulate them by making them think they are getting a really good deal, when in actuality, you're robbing them blind.

    We can sit here and say, that game companies in no way manipulate their customers. So, the question remains, why would they choose F2P + cash shop versus a subscription? The answer is simple, because they make more money. As I said, game companies still make a profit with flat service fee or a subscription. The whole point of F2P + cash shop isn't about making enough, it's about making maximum profits AT the expense of either fair gameplay ( P2W ) or inconveniences ( pay walls ).
    The problem with that is the market bares clear evidence of subscription fatigue. The vast majority of the market have turned their backs on the sub model in gaming. 
    A free to play with microtrans (or in this case B2P with microtrans) makes more fiscal sense as it allows for a lower barrier to entry for the consumer allowing for the opportunity for a higher chance of a better ROI on the title. 

    Which is why I said people are stupid and easily manipulated. They get fooled into thinking, oh look, a free to play game. Then they start playing it only to realize either 80% of the game is locked behind a cash shop pay wall, thus not even close to a F2P game or if it's a PvP game, pretty much guaranteed to see P2W items. At best, I'd be willing to call most F2P games for that they really are, which is Free to Trial. Eventually people will need to spend money and that amount will certainly surpass $15 a month on average. Not to mention, game companies are not going to use a monetization method that makes them LESS money. I'm not entirely sure why it's so hard to understand.
    What does any of that have to do with Cyberpunk? You are having a different conversation than the thread is about. That is the only thing I don't understand. I believe you may have another topic in mind for these thoughts? 

    This is not a thread about mmorpgs. F2P or otherwise. Paying a sub for a multiplayer component for a singleplayer focused RPG like this? You honestly believe enough players would be willing to pay a monthly subscription for that?

    Post edited by blueturtle13 on

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,172
    Rhoklaw said:
    Which is why I said people are stupid and easily manipulated. 
    ...yeah, people with different views/opinions are stupid and/or manipulated. Makes sense.
    IselinAeanderrpmcmurphy
  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 3,650
    Gdemami said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Which is why I said people are stupid and easily manipulated. 
    ...yeah, people with different views/opinions are stupid and/or manipulated. Makes sense.
    Awww, come on G, this is a card you play very, very often.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Nycteliosrpmcmurphy
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...



    'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless. 

    It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.

    It is just huge resource waste....'

    Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,391
    edited November 2019

    Post edited by Iselin on
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 7,124
    edited November 2019
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Gdemami said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    No, the whole F2P + cash shop is simply a way for companies to make MORE than what they actually need. 
    ...so how much money companies need?
    The better question should be, so how much are customers willing to pay? Bottom line is always supply and demand to determine the value of anything. Of course, you can add variables to the equation, such as how stupid are your customers and can you manipulate them by making them think they are getting a really good deal, when in actuality, you're robbing them blind.

    We can sit here and say, that game companies in no way manipulate their customers. So, the question remains, why would they choose F2P + cash shop versus a subscription? The answer is simple, because they make more money. As I said, game companies still make a profit with flat service fee or a subscription. The whole point of F2P + cash shop isn't about making enough, it's about making maximum profits AT the expense of either fair gameplay ( P2W ) or inconveniences ( pay walls ).
    The problem with that is the market bares clear evidence of subscription fatigue. The vast majority of the market have turned their backs on the sub model in gaming. 
    A free to play with microtrans (or in this case B2P with microtrans) makes more fiscal sense as it allows for a lower barrier to entry for the consumer allowing for the opportunity for a higher chance of a better ROI on the title. 

    Which is why I said people are stupid and easily manipulated. They get fooled into thinking, oh look, a free to play game. Then they start playing it only to realize either 80% of the game is locked behind a cash shop pay wall, thus not even close to a F2P game or if it's a PvP game, pretty much guaranteed to see P2W items. At best, I'd be willing to call most F2P games for that they really are, which is Free to Trial. Eventually people will need to spend money and that amount will certainly surpass $15 a month on average. Not to mention, game companies are not going to use a monetization method that makes them LESS money. I'm not entirely sure why it's so hard to understand.
    What does any of that have to do with Cyberpunk? You are having a different conversation than the thread is about. That is the only thing I don't understand. I believe you may have another topic in mind for these thoughts? 

    This is not a thread about mmorpgs. F2P or otherwise. Paying a sub for a multiplayer component for a singleplayer focused RPG like this? You honestly believe enough players would be willing to pay a monthly subscription for that?

    Maybe I am confused. I thought they were implementing some online multiplayer version of the single player game. So what is it? a LAN version co op? Please let me know so I can continue to argue the same points. I never had to submit to MTX when playing Borderlands, so I guess someone needs to explain the reasoning behind the MTX if it's simply just co op being added to a single player game.

    Not to mention your side of the argument has been. CDPR put all their eggs into one basket with Cyberpunk 2077. That they need to recoup the cost of the game somehow and certainly can't afford to supply servers for online play for free. So that begs one to wonder. Why would MTX be sufficient for covering these costs, but a subscription wouldn't? That must mean the MTX offer some advantage right? Because we all know, you aren't going to get the kind of sales you're talking about if all the MTX involves are fluff items. So what are the MTX proposed by CDPR? I'm super curious what they have to offer that isn't intrusive to online play, yet desired enough that people will buy into it? Considering you're saying people wouldn't dare spend $15 a month on a subscription for.
    Gdemami

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,341
    edited November 2019
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Gdemami said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    No, the whole F2P + cash shop is simply a way for companies to make MORE than what they actually need. 
    ...so how much money companies need?
    The better question should be, so how much are customers willing to pay? Bottom line is always supply and demand to determine the value of anything. Of course, you can add variables to the equation, such as how stupid are your customers and can you manipulate them by making them think they are getting a really good deal, when in actuality, you're robbing them blind.

    We can sit here and say, that game companies in no way manipulate their customers. So, the question remains, why would they choose F2P + cash shop versus a subscription? The answer is simple, because they make more money. As I said, game companies still make a profit with flat service fee or a subscription. The whole point of F2P + cash shop isn't about making enough, it's about making maximum profits AT the expense of either fair gameplay ( P2W ) or inconveniences ( pay walls ).
    The problem with that is the market bares clear evidence of subscription fatigue. The vast majority of the market have turned their backs on the sub model in gaming. 
    A free to play with microtrans (or in this case B2P with microtrans) makes more fiscal sense as it allows for a lower barrier to entry for the consumer allowing for the opportunity for a higher chance of a better ROI on the title. 

    Which is why I said people are stupid and easily manipulated. They get fooled into thinking, oh look, a free to play game. Then they start playing it only to realize either 80% of the game is locked behind a cash shop pay wall, thus not even close to a F2P game or if it's a PvP game, pretty much guaranteed to see P2W items. At best, I'd be willing to call most F2P games for that they really are, which is Free to Trial. Eventually people will need to spend money and that amount will certainly surpass $15 a month on average. Not to mention, game companies are not going to use a monetization method that makes them LESS money. I'm not entirely sure why it's so hard to understand.
    What does any of that have to do with Cyberpunk? You are having a different conversation than the thread is about. That is the only thing I don't understand. I believe you may have another topic in mind for these thoughts? 

    This is not a thread about mmorpgs. F2P or otherwise. Paying a sub for a multiplayer component for a singleplayer focused RPG like this? You honestly believe enough players would be willing to pay a monthly subscription for that?

    Maybe I am confused. I thought they were implementing some online multiplayer version of the single player game. So what is it? a LAN version co op? Please let me know so I can continue to argue the same points. I never had to submit to MTX when playing Borderlands, so I guess someone needs to explain the reasoning behind the MTX if it's simply just co op being added to a single player game.

    Not to mention your side of the argument has been. CDPR put all their eggs into one basket with Cyberpunk 2077. That they need to recoup the cost of the game somehow and certainly can't afford to supply servers for online play for free. So that begs one to wonder. Why would MTX be sufficient for covering these costs, but a subscription wouldn't? That must mean the MTX offer some advantage right? Because we all know, you aren't going to get the kind of sales you're talking about if all the MTX involves are fluff items. So what are the MTX proposed by CDPR? I'm super curious what they have to offer that isn't intrusive to online play, yet desired enough that people will buy into it? Considering you're saying people wouldn't dare spend $15 a month on a subscription for.
    Do you think people would be willing to sub to their online component? 
     There is clear industry evidence that shows that a sub is a commitment that has fallen out of favor in the gaming public. 
    There is too much subscription fatigue to rely on a chance that people would sub to a non-mmorpg when the evidence is clear they would not. 

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,341
    edited November 2019
    Besides, if people want to spend money on cosmetics or online world cash to buy cars or whatever why not let them? If some players don't like it? So what. This is a company who has stated over and over that Rockstar is their  role models. They are designing this like GTA Online. No shame in that. They will make a decent amount of money doing it.  

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 7,124
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Gdemami said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    No, the whole F2P + cash shop is simply a way for companies to make MORE than what they actually need. 
    ...so how much money companies need?
    The better question should be, so how much are customers willing to pay? Bottom line is always supply and demand to determine the value of anything. Of course, you can add variables to the equation, such as how stupid are your customers and can you manipulate them by making them think they are getting a really good deal, when in actuality, you're robbing them blind.

    We can sit here and say, that game companies in no way manipulate their customers. So, the question remains, why would they choose F2P + cash shop versus a subscription? The answer is simple, because they make more money. As I said, game companies still make a profit with flat service fee or a subscription. The whole point of F2P + cash shop isn't about making enough, it's about making maximum profits AT the expense of either fair gameplay ( P2W ) or inconveniences ( pay walls ).
    The problem with that is the market bares clear evidence of subscription fatigue. The vast majority of the market have turned their backs on the sub model in gaming. 
    A free to play with microtrans (or in this case B2P with microtrans) makes more fiscal sense as it allows for a lower barrier to entry for the consumer allowing for the opportunity for a higher chance of a better ROI on the title. 

    Which is why I said people are stupid and easily manipulated. They get fooled into thinking, oh look, a free to play game. Then they start playing it only to realize either 80% of the game is locked behind a cash shop pay wall, thus not even close to a F2P game or if it's a PvP game, pretty much guaranteed to see P2W items. At best, I'd be willing to call most F2P games for that they really are, which is Free to Trial. Eventually people will need to spend money and that amount will certainly surpass $15 a month on average. Not to mention, game companies are not going to use a monetization method that makes them LESS money. I'm not entirely sure why it's so hard to understand.
    What does any of that have to do with Cyberpunk? You are having a different conversation than the thread is about. That is the only thing I don't understand. I believe you may have another topic in mind for these thoughts? 

    This is not a thread about mmorpgs. F2P or otherwise. Paying a sub for a multiplayer component for a singleplayer focused RPG like this? You honestly believe enough players would be willing to pay a monthly subscription for that?

    Maybe I am confused. I thought they were implementing some online multiplayer version of the single player game. So what is it? a LAN version co op? Please let me know so I can continue to argue the same points. I never had to submit to MTX when playing Borderlands, so I guess someone needs to explain the reasoning behind the MTX if it's simply just co op being added to a single player game.

    Not to mention your side of the argument has been. CDPR put all their eggs into one basket with Cyberpunk 2077. That they need to recoup the cost of the game somehow and certainly can't afford to supply servers for online play for free. So that begs one to wonder. Why would MTX be sufficient for covering these costs, but a subscription wouldn't? That must mean the MTX offer some advantage right? Because we all know, you aren't going to get the kind of sales you're talking about if all the MTX involves are fluff items. So what are the MTX proposed by CDPR? I'm super curious what they have to offer that isn't intrusive to online play, yet desired enough that people will buy into it? Considering you're saying people wouldn't dare spend $15 a month on a subscription for.
    Do you think people would be willing to sub to their online component? 
     There is clear industry evidence that shows that a sub is a commitment that has fallen out of favor in the gaming public. 
    There is too much subscription fatigue to rely on a chance that people would sub to a non-mmorpg when the evidence is clear they would not. 
    You keep saying subscriptions have fallen out of favor, but instead of saying with gaming companies, you say the gaming public. First off, that is a flat out lie. The ONLY reason F2P + cash shops exist is because cash shops are gimmicky enough to convince the plebs of the gaming community into thinking they don't have to spend a dime to play their games. There are some F2P + cash shop games which in my opinion do favor customers over greed. Those being ESO, LOTRO and GW2.

    However, as you've pointed out several times already, Cyberpunk 2077 is NOT an MMO so server costs should be minimal. Still, you never answered my question in regards to why Borderlands never required MTX for their online gameplay while you claim it's sooo expensive that Cyberpunk 2077 must commit to MTX or risk going bankrupt.
    Gdemami

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,341
    edited November 2019
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Gdemami said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    No, the whole F2P + cash shop is simply a way for companies to make MORE than what they actually need. 
    ...so how much money companies need?
    The better question should be, so how much are customers willing to pay? Bottom line is always supply and demand to determine the value of anything. Of course, you can add variables to the equation, such as how stupid are your customers and can you manipulate them by making them think they are getting a really good deal, when in actuality, you're robbing them blind.

    We can sit here and say, that game companies in no way manipulate their customers. So, the question remains, why would they choose F2P + cash shop versus a subscription? The answer is simple, because they make more money. As I said, game companies still make a profit with flat service fee or a subscription. The whole point of F2P + cash shop isn't about making enough, it's about making maximum profits AT the expense of either fair gameplay ( P2W ) or inconveniences ( pay walls ).
    The problem with that is the market bares clear evidence of subscription fatigue. The vast majority of the market have turned their backs on the sub model in gaming. 
    A free to play with microtrans (or in this case B2P with microtrans) makes more fiscal sense as it allows for a lower barrier to entry for the consumer allowing for the opportunity for a higher chance of a better ROI on the title. 

    Which is why I said people are stupid and easily manipulated. They get fooled into thinking, oh look, a free to play game. Then they start playing it only to realize either 80% of the game is locked behind a cash shop pay wall, thus not even close to a F2P game or if it's a PvP game, pretty much guaranteed to see P2W items. At best, I'd be willing to call most F2P games for that they really are, which is Free to Trial. Eventually people will need to spend money and that amount will certainly surpass $15 a month on average. Not to mention, game companies are not going to use a monetization method that makes them LESS money. I'm not entirely sure why it's so hard to understand.
    What does any of that have to do with Cyberpunk? You are having a different conversation than the thread is about. That is the only thing I don't understand. I believe you may have another topic in mind for these thoughts? 

    This is not a thread about mmorpgs. F2P or otherwise. Paying a sub for a multiplayer component for a singleplayer focused RPG like this? You honestly believe enough players would be willing to pay a monthly subscription for that?

    Maybe I am confused. I thought they were implementing some online multiplayer version of the single player game. So what is it? a LAN version co op? Please let me know so I can continue to argue the same points. I never had to submit to MTX when playing Borderlands, so I guess someone needs to explain the reasoning behind the MTX if it's simply just co op being added to a single player game.

    Not to mention your side of the argument has been. CDPR put all their eggs into one basket with Cyberpunk 2077. That they need to recoup the cost of the game somehow and certainly can't afford to supply servers for online play for free. So that begs one to wonder. Why would MTX be sufficient for covering these costs, but a subscription wouldn't? That must mean the MTX offer some advantage right? Because we all know, you aren't going to get the kind of sales you're talking about if all the MTX involves are fluff items. So what are the MTX proposed by CDPR? I'm super curious what they have to offer that isn't intrusive to online play, yet desired enough that people will buy into it? Considering you're saying people wouldn't dare spend $15 a month on a subscription for.
    Do you think people would be willing to sub to their online component? 
     There is clear industry evidence that shows that a sub is a commitment that has fallen out of favor in the gaming public. 
    There is too much subscription fatigue to rely on a chance that people would sub to a non-mmorpg when the evidence is clear they would not. 
    You keep saying subscriptions have fallen out of favor, but instead of saying with gaming companies, you say the gaming public. First off, that is a flat out lie. The ONLY reason F2P + cash shops exist is because cash shops are gimmicky enough to convince the plebs of the gaming community into thinking they don't have to spend a dime to play their games. There are some F2P + cash shop games which in my opinion do favor customers over greed. Those being ESO, LOTRO and GW2.

    However, as you've pointed out several times already, Cyberpunk 2077 is NOT an MMO so server costs should be minimal. Still, you never answered my question in regards to why Borderlands never required MTX for their online gameplay while you claim it's sooo expensive that Cyberpunk 2077 must commit to MTX or risk going bankrupt.


    It is because Cyberpunk and CDP is an indie company. Borderlands is backed by a very large corporation and has nothing more than a co-op mechanic. Not an online playground like GTA Online. (Even though BL3 does indeed have MTX) 
    CDP needs all the money they can get to expand their gaming portfolio and 'minimal' to you is honestly not minimal at all and even more so for an indie company. (have you seen their financials?)
     It is more than just servers. You have to pay developers to create content for the online component. 

    I don't think Cyberpunk's Multiplayer will just be a mere co-op feature, I think it will be a large GTA Online type situation. Much more detailed and requiring ongoing development costs. 


    If, LOTRO for example, did not convert to F2P it would have closed down. The market does not support subs like it used to. That is just a fact not a lie just truth. We have loads of data over many years now in the industry that supports that. I know a vocal group in the gaming world hate that thought but the fact is subs are a hard sell in todays gaming climate. This is truth. Much more palatable to just add some buyable fluff or charge $19.99 for access to the online world and provide yourself with a bump in revenue and or a residual income that helps pay for the development of further content. Win Win =) 


    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,391
    If, LOTRO for example, did not convert to F2P it would have closed down. The market does not support subs like it used to. That is just a fact not a lie just truth. We have loads of data over many years now in the industry that supports that. I know a vocal group in the gaming world hate that thought but the fact is subs are a hard sell in todays gaming climate. This is truth. 


    I have to wonder though, just where do the WOW and Final Fantasy subs fit into that. 
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • pantaropantaro Member RarePosts: 514
    i never read a article lol i tend to not trust random stories on the internet anyway. i read the investor call.

    We have seen this all before a supposed single player focused narrative based rpg game that for some bizarre reason wants to tack on a multiplayer mode. that's all i need to know! 
  • ArteriusArterius Member EpicPosts: 2,832
    pantaro said:
    i never read a article lol i tend to not trust random stories on the internet anyway. i read the investor call.

    We have seen this all before a supposed single player focused narrative based rpg game that for some bizarre reason wants to tack on a multiplayer mode. that's all i need to know! 
    I mean it is a story based narrative adventure. We know this as a fact. I am not worried about Cyberpunk 2077. The game will be fine. The multiplayer just got out of the R&D phase and is at least a few years away. I am more worried about a sequel. CDPR make some great expansions to there games. If they are being honest there will be two single player expansions alongside Cyberpunk 2077 that are in full development and will as long as Blood and Wine.

    However, if multiplayer takes off who is to say that we won't get a multiplayer mode at launch or shortly after and we get no expansions or single player dlc at all for Cyberpunk 2078. That would suck. 

    I think CDPR may go the way of Rockstar. They will make some really great Single player content that you can spend 100's of hours in but they will stop working on there single player dlc and expansions going forward in favor of a MTX filled multiplayer. I just hope that the MTX isn't as P2W as GTA5 or RDO.  
    Torval
    Currently playing: Outer Worlds (Xbox One X)

    Currently Reading: Skaven Slayer (Gotrek and Felix Book 2)

    Currently Writing: Champions of Legend Book 1 (3rd Draft)

    Currently Watching: Oz (Season 4), Soprano's (Season 1)


Sign In or Register to comment.