Cyberpunk 2077

[Lindon]

I'm not sure what "top seller" means. I do know it's #75 played and hasn't been in the top 10 sellers since February. I don't know where the "top seller" is coming from. The game isn't selling.

It's litterally coming from Steam. It's not my problem that you seemingly don't understand how Steams platform works.
But then again I am talking for Mr. "let's compare 6 months worth of numbers to 4 years worth of numbers". What do I expect?

[Jastall]

Having finally picked this up a few weeks ago, I enjoyed the crap out of it (Over 150 hours so far, 2 playthroughs).

IMO all the continued hate it keeps getting is overblown. Did it have a really abysmal release? Sure, can't argue that. I guess some features that were promised aren't present, I didn't follow it's production so I have no idea what those were. People complain about bugs and crashes, In my hours playing I have only had ONE CTD, and not a single game breaking bug (Small bugs here and there, but nothing worse than other open world games I've played).

My biggest complaint about the game is not being rewarded for exploring and finding to many locked doors that can't be opened.

So for someone like me, that didn't sleep,eat, and breathe it's development cycle; It is a fun game that has brought me many hours of enjoyment.

It's nowhere near a bad game. The open world systems are a bit clumsy and IMO interfere with the story they tell, the RPG elements are very much perfectible and come release it was in an unacceptable technical state (on PS4 it's still hardly ideal) but the combat is fun, the characters are good, the graphics and atmosphere are of course top notch, and its story and themes are the best the Cyberpunk genre gets this side of Blade Runner in my opinion.

The fun part is, what I said about clumsy open world and very meh RPG elements? That 100% applies to TW3 just as well. The only real difference in my eyes is that Geralt's adventures were more polished and had a lot less expectations riding behind them; now CDPR created a lot of those expectations themselves so I'm hardly saying they're innocent victims in all this, but still.

[kaminaris]

The fun part is, what I said about clumsy open world and very meh RPG elements? That 100% applies to TW3 just as well. The only real difference in my eyes is that Geralt's adventures were more polished and had a lot less expectations riding behind them; now CDPR created a lot of those expectations themselves so I'm hardly saying they're innocent victims in all this, but still.

Lot less expectations maybe, more polished? No fucking way. I played on 1 month in on TW3 release and it was a hot buggy mess compared to CP2077.
First it had lot more crashes, second somehow i was able to brick my saves (stopped playing after that for couple weeks), third the amount of cheesing (clearly bad coding) was insane. Stunlocking enemies including bosses, infinite regen, nearly infinite life leech.

And lets not even talk about gliches as those were famous for being hilarious. TPose is nothing compared to that.

Im pretty sure people who say TW3 was more polished played like couple patches later and never saw those issues.

[Jastall]

Lot less expectations maybe, more polished? No fucking way. I played on 1 month in on TW3 release and it was a hot buggy mess compared to CP2077.
First it had lot more crashes, second somehow i was able to brick my saves (stopped playing after that for couple weeks), third the amount of cheesing (clearly bad coding) was insane. Stunlocking enemies including bosses, infinite regen, nearly infinite life leech.

And lets not even talk about gliches as those were famous for being hilarious. TPose is nothing compared to that.

Im pretty sure people who say TW3 was more polished played like couple patches later and never saw those issues.

I played both day 1, and Cyberpunk performed worse (on better hardware, comparatively, I might add) and had lots more bugs, including 3 broken quests in total while TW3 had none for me. T-poses and physics goofs I can forgive, broken quests are another matter entirely.

[kaminaris]

I played both day 1, and Cyberpunk performed worse (on better hardware, comparatively, I might add) and had lots more bugs, including 3 broken quests in total while TW3 had none for me. T-poses and physics goofs I can forgive, broken quests are another matter entirely.

I really dont know how you manage to avoid all the crap i had in TW3. Broken quests in CP at least had a workaround. in TW3 I had to start game anew. Crashes? at least once per hour. CP i had 3 crashes for entire playthrough (cleared map).

Both games cleared 100% no poi or quest left on map.

[Breccia]

It's litterally coming from Steam.

Yes, but what does "top seller" mean?

Bear in mind, not even CDPR is saying it's selling all that well. You'd think they'd brag about a "top seller" and when the game was selling, they did. They've been quiet more recently, refusing to disclose sales.

Details featured within CD Projekt's quarterly earnings report indicate Cyberpunk 2077 sales for Q1 2021 may have been much lower than anticipated. The publisher shared its quarterly results during a call with investors on May 31; a fair few pieces of notable information originated from said talks. For example, the company disclosed a 64 percent loss in net profit for the quarter, citing the sci-fi RPG's myriad launch troubles as the chief cause.

CD Projekt's investor meeting for Q1 2021 additionally featured cursory details about the processes taken to ensure Cyberpunk 2077 returns to the PlayStation Store. While company leadership couldn't offer much in the way of concrete details, SVP Business Development Michał Nowakowski divulged the studio is in the midst of the process necessary to restore the game's digital distribution on PlayStation platforms. CD Projekt refused to offer insight related to the topic of sales data, though, despite its eagerness to flaunt the numbers in the days following Cyberpunk 2077's troubled release.

During the aforementioned earnings call, a CD Projekt investor inquired about Cyberpunk 2077's unit sales for the first quarter of 2021. President and Joint CEO Adam Kiciński didn't provide a direct answer to the question. The executive instead told investors, "We usually communicate unit sales when we reach certain milestones – round numbers that we can announce..." Kiciński went on to note that the sales update for Q1 2021 centered on Cyberpunk's ability to draw in 60 percent of CDPR's product sales revenue. The vast majority of those sales, he continued, stemmed from "PC digital distribution channels." This cagey response seems to indicate the publisher isn't confident in sharing updated data, perhaps because Cyberpunk 2077's quarterly sales were worse than expected.

Interestingly, Cyberpunk 2077 sales on console took a sharp dive weeks after launch. For the month of January, its place on the NPD charts, which track U.S. sales, had tumbled to number 18. It didn't appear on the top 20 best-seller list for February, March, or April, either. Meanwhile, a title like Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales, a PlayStation exclusive released one month ahead of Cyberpunk, continues to chart month after month.

Also:

Speaking more specifically to why this may have been the case, those at CD Projekt said that the weaker sales of Cyberpunk 2077 are due in part to the fact that the title still isn't available to purchase on PlayStation platforms in a digital manner. PlayStation delisted the game as a whole from its platform shortly after Cyberpunk 2077 released and a litany of players began demanding refunds. At this point in time, both PlayStation and CD Projekt haven't said when the game might be eligible to return to the marketplace.

"The general situation as long as we are not back on the Sony store has not changed," said one executive from CD Projekt. "One of the leading marketplaces for us is not available and we generate most of the sales on the PC/digital channels."

It remains to see how Cyberpunk 2077 will continue to do as time goes on. CD Projekt Red has already promised that more updates, future expansions, and even upgrades for next-gen consoles are all going to come about later on in the year. However, if these current sales are anything to go off of, it seems that many potential customers are not going to jump in until the game is either available for less money or players drastically better than it did at launch.

While Cyberpunk 2077 was put back on the PSN store one week ago, Sony put a warning on it saying

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Users continue to experience performance issues with this game. Purchase for use on PS4 systems is not recommended. For the best Cyberpunk experience on PlayStation, play on PS4 Pro and PS5 systems.

About 9 million PS5's have been sold so far. Sony's warning is significant. With the PS version questionable at best and banned at worst, only about 1.2 million copies were sold from Jan to April. It could be lower -- another estimate says 800,000 copies.

Adding to the game's woes, CDPR also publicly spoke out about retail sales.

When a retail store sells a copy, it probably purchased this copy last year – so this number of copies was reported to us by distributors last year, and we reported those revenues last year.

Retail stores would have purchased their stock on release, and they keep selling. This means our distributors do not ship additional stock to them, and our revenues do not include any additional influences from that.

From what I can tell, on Steam, "Top seller" is about total revenue. It is not a constant rotating list of the week/month's top sales (although such lists exist). Cyberpunk 2077 is between The Forest and SubNautica, both of which came out in 2018. It's below Skyrim. I don't think you believe those games are still making big sales today. Or, the list is out of order and its inclusion means basically nothing. Cyberpunk 2077 leapt out with huge first-month sales, then got hammered by poor reviews and at-launch unplayability.

And CDPR's stock price hasn't really improved much. True, it's above the low of early May after that earnings report I mentioned twice in this post. But they spiked to 13.88 June 17 -- itself way below the 31.00 high of Dec 2020 - and it's 11.96 now. Yes, even with the game back on the Sony store, the stock price still dropped.

The game isn't selling. It has sold, past tense, it is not selling, present tense. There is simply no evidence that CD:PR can move this game to any appreciable level.

And CDPR's timeline for updates, as mentioned before, are lagging behind their previous game of Witcher 3. So, back to the original question, no I don't think they'll ever get the game they really wanted.

For the record, I hope they do. A lot of people really wanted this game. Of the (as detailed above) at most 15 million copies sold, 8 million were pre-orders. And a lot of them were disappointed. Despite the lesson we should have learned from Aliens: Colonial Marines, I don't bear those 8 million people any ill will. I'd like their investment and hopes to pay off.

But it doesn't look like it will happen soon. Not with currently existing evidence, at least.

[Zaktar]

Yes, but what does "top seller" mean?

Bear in mind, not even CDPR is saying it's selling all that well. You'd think they'd brag about a "top seller" and when the game was selling, they did. They've been quiet more recently, refusing to disclose sales.

While Cyberpunk 2077 was put back on the PSN store one week ago, Sony put a warning on it saying

About 9 million PS5's have been sold so far. Sony's warning is significant. With the PS version questionable at best and banned at worst, only about 1.2 million copies were sold from Jan to April. It could be lower -- another estimate says 800,000 copies.

Adding to the game's woes, CDPR also publicly spoke out about retail sales.

From what I can tell, on Steam, "Top seller" is about total revenue. It is not a constant rotating list of the week/month's top sales (although such lists exist). Cyberpunk 2077 is between The Forest and SubNautica, both of which came out in 2018. It's below Skyrim. I don't think you believe those games are still making big sales today. Or, the list is out of order and its inclusion means basically nothing. Cyberpunk 2077 leapt out with huge first-month sales, then got hammered by poor reviews and at-launch unplayability.

And CDPR's stock price hasn't really improved much. True, it's above the low of early May after that earnings report I mentioned twice in this post. But they spiked to 13.88 June 17 -- itself way below the 31.00 high of Dec 2020 - and it's 11.96 now. Yes, even with the game back on the Sony store, the stock price still dropped.

The game isn't selling. It has sold, past tense, it is not selling, present tense. There is simply no evidence that CD:PR can move this game to any appreciable level.

And CDPR's timeline for updates, as mentioned before, are lagging behind their previous game of Witcher 3. So, back to the original question, no I don't think they'll ever get the game they really wanted.

For the record, I hope they do. A lot of people really wanted this game. Of the (as detailed above) at most 15 million copies sold, 8 million were pre-orders. And a lot of them were disappointed. Despite the lesson we should have learned from Aliens: Colonial Marines, I don't bear those 8 million people any ill will. I'd like their investment and hopes to pay off.

But it doesn't look like it will happen soon. Not with currently existing evidence, at least.

That's a long way to say that we don't know much about how well or poorly the game is currently selling - all we actually know is that it's sold more than Witcher 3 did in its first year, and sales have been substantially impacted by a subpar release. Their stock price is bound to be impacted by the well earned PR black eye. How well it does over the next four years will depend a lot on what they can pack into the DLC, and no one can predict whether it will be enough to significantly increase sales. I hope it does because the game was fun, I'd like to see more of it and more like it. It will probably never be what it was hyped to be, and it's a shame that game developers keep pulling that shit.

[Breccia]

I'd like to see more of it and more like it. It will probably never be what it was hyped to be, and it's a shame that game developers keep pulling that shit.

Agreed.

Pre-orders and fixed deadlines can't possibly be an easy combo for a video game company to work with. "A delayed game is eventually good" leaps to mind.

[Zaktar]

The game isn't selling. It has sold, past tense, it is not selling, present tense.

Apparently this was incorrect.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultas...elp-from-sony/

Say what you will about Cyberpunk 2077, but people apparently really want to play this game. In the wake of the reversal of its six month ban from the PlayStation Store, Cyberpunk’s return has made it the best-selling game on the PS4 store in the US, Canada and Europe last month, topping mainstays like GTA 5, FIFA 21 and Minecraft.

It’s not on the PS5 charts at all (Update: I believe even if downloaded on PS5, it still counts as a PS4 game as it has no next-gen version), but it appears the larger playerbase of the PS4 wants to give it a shot and may indeed believe that it’s “fixed,” now that Sony has greenlit it to come back to the store. Is it? Not exactly. While the PS4 Pro version runs pretty well at this point, the PS4 version is always going to struggle with the core demands of the game. It’s better than it was, certainly, and many quest-breaking bugs have been squashed, but it’s far from perfect.

What’s interesting is that Cyberpunk 2077 has raced up through the PS4 charts with seemingly no real help from Sony. Sony did not announce Cyberpunk’s return with anything approaching fanfare, nor has the game been prominently featured on store pages from what I can see.

Browsing through the top PS4 games on console, sorting by “most popular,” you have to scroll through about 30 entries to even see Cyberpunk 2077, despite it quite literally being the most popular game on PS4, according to Sony itself.

[Breccia]

Apparently this was incorrect.

Strange that CDPR would hide this...but, yeah, apparently it is selling, present tense.

This is, of course, good news for the players, new and old. More money coming into the game means more support will be offered, as there will be both means and motivation.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently this was incorrect.

Actually some questions.
1) Does the PS Store track sales, or downloads?
2) The game was held off the PS Store for a while. What would we have seen, if we spread the, um, pent-up money shot over the previous months? Did this "sales spike" make up for months of lost income?
3) Do we have any numbers on any of that?
4) What about other platforms?

And finally:

5) Didn't we just have CDPR re-release an old ad during WitcherCon? And then have no patch?

On Steam at least, the game saw a 9% increase in players last month. Great. Good. Problem is...every other month. With the exception of April, they lost double-digit percent of players, making the +9% even more impressive honestly but they're not back to May.

April they stayed about even. This makes a lot of sense in context, as multiple updates were released. If they want to get new players, or at this point keep existing ones, they're going to need to do that again.

Putting the game back on the PS Store is helping, and that's good, but it's a tourniquet not life-saving surgery.

[kenn9530]

On Steam at least, the game saw a 9% increase in players last month. Great. Good. Problem is...every other month. With the exception of April, they lost double-digit percent of players, making the +9% even more impressive honestly but they're not back to May.

Players are obviously going to stop playing a single player game once they have done what they want in it, not many single player games can hold much more than a small playerbase consistantly, so there is no problem at all with players not playing the game anymore.

The game is a pretty damn good single player story game but does not have much more than 100 hours playtime in it for at least one play through. I have had no issues since its launch playing the game at all, the game is probably the best single player story game released in the past many years.

[jellmoo]

Apologies for the minor necro:

I started playing about two weeks ago, having avoided the game since release due to all of the bugs. I picked it up on Steam at a discount and finished it last night. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I have no idea how bad it really was on release, but the current game is pretty good when it comes to bugs. Some bisual bugs, and I didn't do any math to see how perks and the like were functioning, but I had no gameplay issues.

I'm not usually a sci-fi guy, but I really like the game, the story, the characters and the atmosphere. I played it off of back to back playthroughs of The outer Worlds asnd Fallout 4, and I would rate Cyberpunk 2077 as more fun that the other two. Maybe not 'better', but I enjoyed myself more overall.

Anyone who avoided the game due to reported bugginess, I think that the PC version is definitely worth a look.

[Lothaeryn]

Apologies for the minor necro:

I started playing about two weeks ago, having avoided the game since release due to all of the bugs. I picked it up on Steam at a discount and finished it last night. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I have no idea how bad it really was on release, but the current game is pretty good when it comes to bugs. Some bisual bugs, and I didn't do any math to see how perks and the like were functioning, but I had no gameplay issues.

I'm not usually a sci-fi guy, but I really like the game, the story, the characters and the atmosphere. I played it off of back to back playthroughs of The outer Worlds asnd Fallout 4, and I would rate Cyberpunk 2077 as more fun that the other two. Maybe not 'better', but I enjoyed myself more overall.

Anyone who avoided the game due to reported bugginess, I think that the PC version is definitely worth a look.

The game was always decent on PC, but the major glitches and issues were predominantly from Xbox and PS4 versions of the game.

The major complaints I would say are the fact that most of the promotion material was misleading and pretty much fake. They set the expectation that your background path would affect your gameplay in a more significant way which would promote replayability, only for it to affect the opening prologue and minor dialogue options with 2-3 npc's.

That, combined with multiple gameplay bugs, some of which prevent 100% completion (I had a bug where my target to kill literally fell through the map and never reset, making killing him impossible without console commands) made the game's reputation tank. As much as I enjoyed the game it was far below the expectations set by their marketing team, and they were painfully stressed for time their leadership denied them to properly develop the game.

I really hope they pull a No Man's Sky, because the game itself and its concept is solid. It can easily be expanded upon without any effort if given the chance. But that first impression will tarnish any chances of rebounding. They need to put a lot more effort in than they ever expected prior.

[Jastall]

Apologies for the minor necro:

I started playing about two weeks ago, having avoided the game since release due to all of the bugs. I picked it up on Steam at a discount and finished it last night. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I have no idea how bad it really was on release, but the current game is pretty good when it comes to bugs. Some bisual bugs, and I didn't do any math to see how perks and the like were functioning, but I had no gameplay issues.

I'm not usually a sci-fi guy, but I really like the game, the story, the characters and the atmosphere. I played it off of back to back playthroughs of The outer Worlds asnd Fallout 4, and I would rate Cyberpunk 2077 as more fun that the other two. Maybe not 'better', but I enjoyed myself more overall.

Anyone who avoided the game due to reported bugginess, I think that the PC version is definitely worth a look.

I never thought it was a bad game, buggy yes but not more than any open world game on launch, even if I did have two progression-blocking bugs on sidequests. Otherwise it's got a really good story with a charismatic cast of characters and the gameplay is solid if unspectacular, alongside great graphics obviously. The quest design isn't great sadly which is my biggest gripe with the title, it's very GTA-esque where the games closes down during missions and doesn't really allow you anywhere near the same freedom as the open world, plus the RPG elements are lacking as your decisions don't affect the story a whole lot aside from picking which ending path you unlock.

It's still well wroth a playthrough as you said. Personally I thought far lesser games got a lot more positive press; the dangers of hype backlash I'd assume.

[jellmoo]

The game was always decent on PC, but the major glitches and issues were predominantly from Xbox and PS4 versions of the game.

The major complaints I would say are the fact that most of the promotion material was misleading and pretty much fake. They set the expectation that your background path would affect your gameplay in a more significant way which would promote replayability, only for it to affect the opening prologue and minor dialogue options with 2-3 npc's.

That, combined with multiple gameplay bugs, some of which prevent 100% completion (I had a bug where my target to kill literally fell through the map and never reset, making killing him impossible without console commands) made the game's reputation tank. As much as I enjoyed the game it was far below the expectations set by their marketing team, and they were painfully stressed for time their leadership denied them to properly develop the game.

I really hope they pull a No Man's Sky, because the game itself and its concept is solid. It can easily be expanded upon without any effort if given the chance. But that first impression will tarnish any chances of rebounding. They need to put a lot more effort in than they ever expected prior.

I think coming into the game without any expectations definitely helped. I never paid any attention to it when in development, so there wasn't anything for me to be disappointed by. HEll, I'm not even much of a fan of the Witcher games, so I wasn't even there for the pedigree.

I got about 70 hours of fun gameplay, which is pretty good. Of course that's many months after release and multiple bug patches along the way. I would probably be singing a different tun if I'd played it when it came out. I could definitely see myself being disappointed if I had followed along with the development and wound up getting omething that was missing a lot of what was promised, absolutely. I'm still bitter about M<ass Effect 3 endings to this day. But without expectations, this was a fun game that proved to be pretty darn immersive.

- - - Updated - - -

I never thought it was a bad game, buggy yes but not more than any open world game on launch, even if I did have two progression-blocking bugs on sidequests. Otherwise it's got a really good story with a charismatic cast of characters and the gameplay is solid if unspectacular, alongside great graphics obviously. The quest design isn't great sadly which is my biggest gripe with the title, it's very GTA-esque where the games closes down during missions and doesn't really allow you anywhere near the same freedom as the open world, plus the RPG elements are lacking as your decisions don't affect the story a whole lot aside from picking which ending path you unlock.

It's still well wroth a playthrough as you said. Personally I thought far lesser games got a lot more positive press; the dangers of hype backlash I'd assume.

What this game managed to do pretty well was make me care about my character. This is actually a rarity for me. Usually I'll find NPCs that I like, but the main character, the one I'm playing tends to not really be all that interesting. I made a female V, and I thought she was great. Snarky and fun, the voice actress did a tremendous job of grabbing my attention and carrying me along for the ride.

[Mojo03]

I really enjoyed it.

Barely had issues on PS5 when I played it last winter when it was in it's worst state. Couple crashes and a couple weird animations, that was pretty much it. Not ideal, but not crazy either. Sort of fit the theme of the game...

It for sure felt like it needed another year of development to polish and live up to the hype, but its still a great game.

Hope they do DLC soon

[Jastall]

What this game managed to do pretty well was make me care about my character. This is actually a rarity for me. Usually I'll find NPCs that I like, but the main character, the one I'm playing tends to not really be all that interesting. I made a female V, and I thought she was great. Snarky and fun, the voice actress did a tremendous job of grabbing my attention and carrying me along for the ride.

V's a great protagonist all in all, being defined enough to be interesting while leaving just enough to the player to shape him/her to be their own to a degree. It works much better than Geralt does IMO.

[Izzyfurious]

Roadmap Updated, pushing all Updates to Next Year. They once again over promised and under delivered...

[Doffen]

I think coming into the game without any expectations definitely helped. I never paid any attention to it when in development, so there wasn't anything for me to be disappointed by. HEll, I'm not even much of a fan of the Witcher games, so I wasn't even there for the pedigree.

I got about 70 hours of fun gameplay, which is pretty good. Of course that's many months after release and multiple bug patches along the way. I would probably be singing a different tun if I'd played it when it came out. I could definitely see myself being disappointed if I had followed along with the development and wound up getting omething that was missing a lot of what was promised, absolutely. I'm still bitter about M<ass Effect 3 endings to this day. But without expectations, this was a fun game that proved to be pretty darn immersive.

- - - Updated - - -



What this game managed to do pretty well was make me care about my character. This is actually a rarity for me. Usually I'll find NPCs that I like, but the main character, the one I'm playing tends to not really be all that interesting. I made a female V, and I thought she was great. Snarky and fun, the voice actress did a tremendous job of grabbing my attention and carrying me along for the ride.

I have the same experience. Sure there are bugs, but I am not someone who get bothered so much about it, so its just seeing a flying man, and then moving on. I also started on this side of the year so.

I think Witcher77 is a cool game. I like the main story a lot. I made a male V, and I really like him and the way you could shape it into something on your own. The banter interaction with V and Johnny made me laugh several times. My hero in the game though is Jackie, such a good character, though you know... Which is something I think they did good with overall, the characters. The main side stories were fun imo, Judy and River's story was cool, but there was one story that really made me like this game a lot:

Panam Palmers story. I started playing at night a saturday, and played that quest chain into the morning, and I was lost in the story. It was a great journey, and I had a really good time.

I have 65 hours played into the game. What I feel though is that the main story could have been longer, which is honestly my only gripe with Cyberpunk77.

Night City. I really like moving around in it. I had a great time in that city, no matter the bugs or whatever.

[Easo]

Roadmap Updated, pushing all Updates to Next Year. They once again over promised and under delivered...

They truly outdid themselves with this roadmap, it's worse than Star Citizen's ones. I just really hope the waiting is worth it...