Random: Cyberpunk 2077 Jokes About Fixing Games 'Later' With No Man's Sky Creator Sean Murray

Felt more like a jab/selfjab because of how both CP2077 and NMS where bad and broken at launch and both got amazing starting with their 2.0 updates.
Not so much actual advice.

i buy no games day one anymore. maybe year 2. and will only play cp2077 if its gets on gp.

Bit of banter. I mean, that’s all it was.

@rustyduck this is definitely the way to go, especially with AAA releases. So many buggy and/or poorly optimised games have released in the last few years, I can't entertain the thought of spending £60/70 on something that might not work properly for a year or more.

In this day and age, everything is taken out of context. It was a joke I’m sure. Let’s be honest, CD Projekt Red knew they messed up the launch big time and look at Cyberpunk now. Same with No man’s Sky. If there were ever 2 developers that can get away with a joke about fixing a game as time goes on, it’s these 2. They both made amazing games out of 2 bad starts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I really don't think ANY Studio should be praised for getting their game up to the standard expected and with the content/features etc promised finally added. Getting awards for 'turning' a disaster launch into the game those players expected eventually is promoting bad practices.

Ongoing support should be for games that 'continue' to add content etc above and beyond the expected or promised content in my opinion...

I started Cyberpunk on PS5 again at the weekend, and while I am finally enjoying the game very much, it still has a large quantity of bugs and crashes, which people seem to be giving a free pass to as its "fixed"

In 7 hours playtime it has crashed 3 times, I have experienced various graphical bugs and glitches like the screen going black and parts of the map not loading correctly and npcs still t post.

I expected a lot better on the technical front after all the redemption arc stories and rave reviews it got.

Well I'm sure it was just a jab, but it tells you where the AAA gaming experience is truly at. Release broken game and maybe possibly fix it in the next 2-3 years

I can see the funny side for sure, but I also see the other side of the argument and thats not so funny.

@S-Bacc There is a big difference between given Devs some credit for sticking by their game and 'fixing' it to be the game they 'promised' at Launch, not just writing it off as a 'bad' product and moving on quickly to something else and releasing a 'great' game at launch and then supporting it with additional content that keeps players engaged and/or even bring new players in long beyond its 'expected' life cycle.

Giving an 'award' to a Game that was 'not' what gamers expected and paid top price for (as games are most expensive at launch), that they couldn't 'play' until months/years later when the game is now much cheaper too doesn't sit right with me.

As I said, I have no issue with acknowledging the fact that those Developers have turned their games around, snatched some victory from the jaws of defeat so to speak, but to give an award for 'finally' getting the game in its best state and its 'promised' post launch content out is saying that this is acceptable practice.

I'd rather they awarded it to games that were good to start with, get out all the 'promised' post launch content on time etc, then because the game is 'still' popular, go above and beyond to continue to support the Community that still play. If CoD for example was expected to end after 1yr, but they continue to support it with new maps, new modes, new content beyond what was promised/expected, then that deserves an Award more than a game that 'finally' gets the Game and all the promised Content, features etc out and in a great playable state - that was what you 'expect' from the Game anyway. So Awards should go above and beyond expectations - not fixing issues and adding content that was 'promised' before launch...

Sadly this is the norm now. Cyberpunk and No Man's Sky were just stand outs in this department. The former because of how broken it was and the latter for both that as well as the deliberate misinformation they spread.

But it is really telling the direction the industry is going when people are okay with jokes like this despite the direction games are going. This is just one more step in normalizing the practice.

@rustyduck
Exactly. I can tell you the last game I bought day one. Elden Ring. And the only reason for that was because Walmart had the disc copy for $39.99 on day of release.

It was a joke that highlighted the pain that gamers are experiencing too often to a point it is the norm. We should be outraged at the industry. It would be great if the metacritic score would not be published until an independent agency says it meets a certain level of stability. Look at BG3 with saved games bug… obviously rushed it for TGA

@S-Bacc yeah - its like awarding a 7/10 average game an Award for just delivering what you should expect from a game instead of giving to games that 'exceed' expectations and/or go above/beyond the minimum standards you should expect.

I see it as their job to make a game, fix any issues with that game and deliver the Content they 'promised' even if that is 'post-launch' content on the road-map presented 'before' launch. Therefore that Content was expected anyway - not above/beyond expectations to merit an award. Of course they could be eligible for best DLC content award or if they had an award for 'most improved' game (which I think would encourage some to release 'early' to have the 'most' to improve to win that award), maybe but that Support had to be 'necessary' because the game was so much of a mess to begin with - unplayable for 'many'.

I’m not mad. The backlash means I got the base game for 5 bucks and then the dlc for 18. Good deal.

It was obviously fun banter, but...I'm still playing NMS. 😜

Don’t they know humour went out of fashion years ago?