Cyberpunk 2077 quest lead says early access wouldn't work for CDPR the way it did for Larian, and the studio prefers 'to have a banging release where everything is as close to perfection as can be...
Cyberpunk 2077 quest lead says early access wouldn't work for CDPR the way it did for Larian, and the studio prefers 'to have a banging release where everything is as close to perfection as can be...
Paweł Sasko says CDPR's ambition's don't include a Baldur's Gate 3-style early access period.
You're viewing a single thread.
I seem to remember Cyberpunk 2077 having a release that was quite far from perfection...
The whole release was early access in my opinion, they just weren't honest about it. Eventually it was a really good game, but even then it didn't have everything they'd advertised.
It took 2 years and an expansion before it was no longer “early access,” and as soon as it was actually good, they announced there would be no more updates.
Took them to 1.6 to fix some very critical performance issues too. lol And even then I wouldn't say the game is in a state that I'd call "perfection".
The issue with Cyberpunk was 100% a problem created by the marketing team and executives giving false promises and ideas about the content of the game, and rather than admitting they were wrong, forcing the developers to change what they were developing into the game the marketing team was marketing.
False promises didn't make broken perks (anything related to knife throwing) or useless skill tree (crafting) or police spawning right behind you or cars being completely undriveable on higher speeds or all the other things they fixed after release.
Marketing was an issue but there were things wrong with the game that had nothing to do with marketing. The game was broken even if marketing had been on point.
Marketing was an issue but there were things wrong with the game that had nothing to do with marketing.
If the executives tell the developers they need to add or change something to match what the marketing team put out and that they have limited time to do it, those changes can have adverse effects on other systems that may have already been in the game before the changes were mandated. Altering something simple can sometimes lead to other systems behaving incorrectly especially if you don't have enough time to implement it properly, this is a very common thing that happens all the time in programming.
Why are you assuming the marketing team could do whatever they want and then management just goes "guess we're doing that now"? Did they hold the directors (or whoever they got in front of the camera) at gun point to force them to say they're going to do things they weren't planning to do? Even if we somehow accept that are true it still opens up the question of why wasn't this then properly planned into the roadmap and have timelines adjusted? Or did the marketing also dictate the timeline?
It's more likely marketing also did what management told them to do and the poor management is what got us the bad marketing material and poor quality product.
We can agree that management was the issue and that marketing generally sucks (I've had first hand experience where marketing/sales fucks over the devs because they never even talked to us, with normal management that happens only once), but I don't think you can or should blame marketing to the extent that you have.
I wouldn't say 100%. Marketing wasn't responsible for releasing on platforms that couldn't actually run the game properly..
Witcher 3 was pretty damn buggy on release too. Not Cyberpunk level buggy, but still
And a complete lackluster main quest.
I dont think they updated the main quest line much, its still short and not too special. But there are many side quests of which some a really good. Also the Phantom Liberty expansion is excellent, best part of the game imo
I mean, he's talking about what he'd prefer. I'm sure that if you ask him, he wouldn't prefer problems at launch either.