>"Some of you might also be wondering what these words mean in light of us saying we achieved gold master some time ago. Passing certification, or 'going gold', means the game is ready, can be completed, and has all content in it. But it doesn't mean we stop working on it and raising the quality bar."
No... that's actually exactly what it means. Going gold means the branch is cut, it's in the can, and discs are being printed. Just admit that you exaggerated for press coverage and get over it. No one really cares about another month delay, but lying about going gold is just bizarre.
I'm always fascinated by people who insist on applying their own interpretation of something to other people's lives/businesses/processes.
Games have been getting "post-gold" updates and day-one patches for like a decade or more.. This is nothing new.
I don't understand the fixation of catching people in an alleged lie.. What's the difference whether they genuinely underestimated the time required to do something _they've never done before_ (testing on so many platforms) or whether they actually, completely unreasonably, decided to lie to everyone about having gone gold?
Not to mention that if they hadn't actually gone gold, there are tons of outside parties who would probably have realized it pretty quickly (given the production work that happens), and we'd all have found out anyways.
They might actually be printing discs, though. Nowadays, multi-gigabyte day-one patches are commonplace, so all the disk is for is shipping art assets cheaply (and supporting legacy retail sales). So as long as the art assets are 95% done, that’s good enough to “go gold” and start printing.
Gold just means you have a MVP that will pass certification on all platforms. It's content complete and it would, in theory, be fine to play all the way through without a patch. It allows manufacturing and distribution to begin.
There are frequently many tweaks one should do to that product that companies will work on after reaching that point.
This has changed so much over time. Par for the course these days is shipping a buggy mess as a GM. Then a massive as hell Day 1 patch to fix it all.
I forget the exact details but there was a game this current gen that had a 40gb day one patch. I felt so bad for those that bought a disc version just to have to download a massive patch after installing the game.
The delay doesn't annoy me that much but the Day 0 patch trend does.
Seriously why people can't just release 1.0 software that is 1.0 anymore?
Although broadband now is widespread, in many situations people might not have it.
Situations where day-0 patch is bad:
1. Countries or places with poor infrastructure
2. Rural areas
3. People using the software after many years when the server with the patch might be gone.
Also there is the fact many companies abuse patches to add features they shouldn't or remove features (rootkits, DRM, or Paradox habit of removing features in a way to "encourage" people to buy DLC, or PS3 suddenly not supporting Linux anymore, and then there is Epic "hotfix")
The possibility of having patches is good. The habit of patching is bad. Or course adding features and content over time is fine, but releasing software you know it is buggy intending to patch is later is not.
I'm not sure if that's still the case, but one of the main reasons were the publishing platforms and deadlines (@someone more knowledgeable, please correct me if I'm wrong!) :
As a game developer you'd need to set the publishing date weeks if not months in advance. Due to the store policies, missing that slot would result in another, potentially very expensive, delay.
Now, marketing is a significant part of the budget and you really want to sync your marketing campaign with the release date. Postponing the release by a few weeks is almost guaranteed to damage the sales drastically, to the point where it could kill your game before people even have a chance to learn about it.
You're late. So what do you do? You release all of your fixes in a huge day-0 patch. It's still better than the alternative.
The increasing overall complexity of the product itself and the diversity of platforms the product needs to ship on makes actual 1.0 nearly impossible. Games especially never ship as 1.0, they ship when the deadline comes and it's in somewhat playable state. No matter how much you delay, there will always be more shit to fix and letting it go is always a compromise.
Those people angry that a software corporation lied to them about the certainty of a product release should just consider the game to have started early.
"Welcome to Cyberpunk 2020! All public statements are bottom-line-boosting propaganda, and if you want the real truth, or our software, so bad, break into our systems and take it."
The Twitter replies are absolutely brutal and overly aggressive towards the developers, but I do have some level of empathy for it. This is such a hotly-anticipated release and people are craving escapism in 2020, and this game is going to provide that for so many people. That said, the level of aggression is intense and crosses the line.
Still, I feel sorry for the developers who were seriously in a Catch-22. They are (correctly, IMO) prioritising the right thing by focusing on quality over the short-term negativity from a very vocal group. I wish more companies would take this approach (or, in the case of Apple, rediscover this approach).
It's not just that people want the game. Fans have been increasingly concerned in the past year about CDPR's history with crunch and incredibly negative reports about their workplace culture. There's a lot of concern that the people making the game they love have been working horrible hours for the past month and will now have to keep doing it for another month and a half. This is part of a broader concern over mismanagement of their human resources generally.
I've been eagerly waiting for this game to get my RPG fix, but recently the agony became too great and I bought Ghost of Tsushima instead. What a great game! Now I'm more glad I didn't wait. I can only play a couple of these sandbox monsters each year, so I'm penciling in Cyberpunk for 2077, when I can download it to my brain implant in the cryo tank.
Are the physical disc games getting regular updates? What I mean is that besides the "GOTY edition" or "Platinum" and so on, if Cyberpunk 2077 gets a patch, are the discs produced after it automatically produced with the latest version?
I probably will buy this game in January, but it bothers me to get a game that if I play 10 years later when the original updating service is no longer active, it may not be playable.
Exactly, especially when developers having been crunching it for the past months, I do believe all the extra delay will be the best thing for their health. After all, kids can’t have their shiny toy with minor bugs. It would be even better if devs were not told about the extra delay, and only got the news through social media like it happened.
This is its third delay I think. And AFTER announcing its gold status. This is so bizarre. And it's not even an amateur studio or a monumental project like Star Citizen. They delivered multiple projects that were at least of comparable size.
They released so many trailers in the last weeks and even days. This must be so expensive purely from a marketing perspective.
Also none of the reasons are news. Corona has been here for a long time now, and other teams deal with it, too. And I'm sure the release platforms have also been set in stone for a long time.
Well sure they've delivered projects of this size before but as they said themselves, they've never had to test on this many platforms simultaneously, or do it all while working remotely..
So in fact this isn't something they've done before, so it's not _that_ surprising that they underestimated..
How is this expensive? Almost all of the trailers I watched had in-game action, and only one featured Keanu and his bike company, which was obviously shot months ago.
Absolutely. First it pertains to the persistent problem of projecting release dates and committing to them.
More importantly, it adds data points to the story of CD Projekt Red getting press for bragging about no ‘mandatory’ crunch time and subsequently adopting a brutal mandatory crunch at the home stretch.
The delays of Cyberpunk have been one of the most high profile stories regarding developer crunch I can think of in years. The video game itself isn't necessarily HN relevant, but the delay very much is.
That's what people asked for before and also what we got, "Early Access" games. But instead of getting games that steadily improve radically over a long period of time, you get unfinished games that get a bit of polish before "1.0" is released as a marketing update almost.
Of couse, there are a few exceptions to this rule, like HNs favorite; Factorio, and Kerbal Space Program, Prison Architect, Rimworld are a few other examples. But most Early Access games released are in reality excuses for releasing something unfinished early, and only do small changes after that.
Almost all indie games seem to be doing early access these days and I agree that it's a good idea in many cases. In a narrative game like Cyberpunk, however, I want the game to be right at launch because that's when I'll be playing it and I'll probably only play once.
Not in this case: it's a large and complex adventure game that most people will only play once or (if obsessive) a few times with major plot and character variants, not a puzzle or strategy game that is meant to be replayed over and over again, enjoyed at launch, and enjoyed again after updates.
Only the "maximum viable product", the best possible version of the game within budget and technical limitations, is relevant.
If properly managed, sure. The problem here is that its been reported that the studio has been crunching and working 6 day weeks under the assumption that it was the final push for nearly a year now, but release keeps getting pushed back, for the third time now.
how does this make sense for a single-player rpg? most videogame sales happen within one or two months of release, and most people are not going to replay this kind of game unless they really like it.
this is pretty much the only release I'm looking forward to this year, and I very much appreciate that they are pushing it back until they feel it is finished.
[+] [-] aphextron|5 years ago|reply
No... that's actually exactly what it means. Going gold means the branch is cut, it's in the can, and discs are being printed. Just admit that you exaggerated for press coverage and get over it. No one really cares about another month delay, but lying about going gold is just bizarre.
[+] [-] sbarre|5 years ago|reply
Games have been getting "post-gold" updates and day-one patches for like a decade or more.. This is nothing new.
I don't understand the fixation of catching people in an alleged lie.. What's the difference whether they genuinely underestimated the time required to do something _they've never done before_ (testing on so many platforms) or whether they actually, completely unreasonably, decided to lie to everyone about having gone gold?
Not to mention that if they hadn't actually gone gold, there are tons of outside parties who would probably have realized it pretty quickly (given the production work that happens), and we'd all have found out anyways.
[+] [-] BurritoAlPastor|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NikolaeVarius|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aeturnum|5 years ago|reply
There are frequently many tweaks one should do to that product that companies will work on after reaching that point.
[+] [-] selykg|5 years ago|reply
I forget the exact details but there was a game this current gen that had a 40gb day one patch. I felt so bad for those that bought a disc version just to have to download a massive patch after installing the game.
[+] [-] carlosrg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdoms|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] speeder|5 years ago|reply
Seriously why people can't just release 1.0 software that is 1.0 anymore?
Although broadband now is widespread, in many situations people might not have it.
Situations where day-0 patch is bad:
1. Countries or places with poor infrastructure
2. Rural areas
3. People using the software after many years when the server with the patch might be gone.
Also there is the fact many companies abuse patches to add features they shouldn't or remove features (rootkits, DRM, or Paradox habit of removing features in a way to "encourage" people to buy DLC, or PS3 suddenly not supporting Linux anymore, and then there is Epic "hotfix")
The possibility of having patches is good. The habit of patching is bad. Or course adding features and content over time is fine, but releasing software you know it is buggy intending to patch is later is not.
[+] [-] rpastuszak|5 years ago|reply
As a game developer you'd need to set the publishing date weeks if not months in advance. Due to the store policies, missing that slot would result in another, potentially very expensive, delay.
Now, marketing is a significant part of the budget and you really want to sync your marketing campaign with the release date. Postponing the release by a few weeks is almost guaranteed to damage the sales drastically, to the point where it could kill your game before people even have a chance to learn about it.
You're late. So what do you do? You release all of your fixes in a huge day-0 patch. It's still better than the alternative.
[+] [-] bloody-crow|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gojomo|5 years ago|reply
"Welcome to Cyberpunk 2020! All public statements are bottom-line-boosting propaganda, and if you want the real truth, or our software, so bad, break into our systems and take it."
[+] [-] black_puppydog|5 years ago|reply
It seems to mostly have grown into "this is simply our reality now."
[+] [-] emdowling|5 years ago|reply
Still, I feel sorry for the developers who were seriously in a Catch-22. They are (correctly, IMO) prioritising the right thing by focusing on quality over the short-term negativity from a very vocal group. I wish more companies would take this approach (or, in the case of Apple, rediscover this approach).
[+] [-] rainonmoon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LockAndLol|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hirundo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmf|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theandrewbailey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickthemagicman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RobLach|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] user568439|5 years ago|reply
I probably will buy this game in January, but it bothers me to get a game that if I play 10 years later when the original updating service is no longer active, it may not be playable.
[+] [-] symlinkk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] por0|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamnemecek|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talles|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lm28469|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s9w|5 years ago|reply
They released so many trailers in the last weeks and even days. This must be so expensive purely from a marketing perspective.
Also none of the reasons are news. Corona has been here for a long time now, and other teams deal with it, too. And I'm sure the release platforms have also been set in stone for a long time.
Also just Yesterday they posted this on twitter: https://twitter.com/CyberpunkGame/status/1320829781936640013
[+] [-] panpanna|5 years ago|reply
They also delivered Witcher 2, which - many years later - is still full of bugs and not playable on some HW.
[+] [-] sbarre|5 years ago|reply
So in fact this isn't something they've done before, so it's not _that_ surprising that they underestimated..
[+] [-] elorant|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway3699|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jadbox|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antiterra|5 years ago|reply
More importantly, it adds data points to the story of CD Projekt Red getting press for bragging about no ‘mandatory’ crunch time and subsequently adopting a brutal mandatory crunch at the home stretch.
[+] [-] bart_spoon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixxel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elorant|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reciprocity|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capableweb|5 years ago|reply
Of couse, there are a few exceptions to this rule, like HNs favorite; Factorio, and Kerbal Space Program, Prison Architect, Rimworld are a few other examples. But most Early Access games released are in reality excuses for releasing something unfinished early, and only do small changes after that.
[+] [-] wmf|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HelloNurse|5 years ago|reply
Only the "maximum viable product", the best possible version of the game within budget and technical limitations, is relevant.
[+] [-] danjac|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bart_spoon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leetcrew|5 years ago|reply
this is pretty much the only release I'm looking forward to this year, and I very much appreciate that they are pushing it back until they feel it is finished.
[+] [-] baal80spam|5 years ago|reply