Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

More important, imo, is that they have very public ads running (for instance, on public transportation) with what is now the incorrect street date.

yeah, whatever technical issue this is, it was found at last minute and is presumably pretty major.

that said I'm fine with it as it gives me a month to play the new assasin's creed without killing myself trying to push through it in the week between it and cyberpunk

I've got an odd feeling about this game. Considering how much a fan I am of blade runner and the genre in general you'd think i'd be hyped over the moon for this. But I just don't feel much hype. I really doubt this game can live up to what people have built it up as.

And this is why you don't crunch.

Lord Kragan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Better later and propperly polished then to early.

I honestly am on the opposite side of the fence, if only for the fact that this delay only means a prolongation of the soulcrushing crunch.

Hear me out, IF the project would've been propperly planned for a longer time they'd also not have to crunch as nonsensically as they are now..
Alas one of the reasons why i prefer when games companies are not giving out release dates to the public....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vertrucio wrote:
And this is why you don't crunch.

another side effect of crunch indeed is lower quality and issues...

 Thargrim wrote:
I've got an odd feeling about this game. Considering how much a fan I am of blade runner and the genre in general you'd think i'd be hyped over the moon for this. But I just don't feel much hype. I really doubt this game can live up to what people have built it up as.

I wouldn't expect much blade runner from this. The Cyberpunk RPG is more glam rock, drugs and Cybernetic sexual enhancements. It's very, very naked 80s. Lot more robocop than the gritty noir dark nights feel of Bladerunner. Closest bladerunner gets is the strip clue and hooker-adjacent noodle vendors, and the strip club isn't nearly glitzy and over-exaggerated enough.

Voss wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
I've got an odd feeling about this game. Considering how much a fan I am of blade runner and the genre in general you'd think i'd be hyped over the moon for this. But I just don't feel much hype. I really doubt this game can live up to what people have built it up as.

I wouldn't expect much blade runner from this. The cyberpunk RPG is more glam rock, drugs and Cybernetic sexual enhancements. It's very, very naked 80s. Lot more robocop than the gritty noir dark nights feel of Bladerunner. Closest bladerunner gets is the strip clue and hooker-adjacent noodle vendors, and the strip club isn't nearly glitzy and over-exaggerated enough.

Hammer meet nail. Take a loot at the videos of it. It's pretty far removed from Bladerunner. Maybe Deus Ex is closer?

I don't care at all about the delay. However, I think they screwed up by having a set date in the first place. If there is one thing Bethesda does right, it is not announcing games until they're about ready to release. Fallout 4 was announced in June and released in November. Given it was Bethesda, I'm sure it was a buggy mess at first (side note I'm 70 hours into a came with 80 mods running and no bugs so make of that what you will).

CDPR announced Cyberpunk 2077 in 2013 and released a demo trailer in 2018. Why?

 trexmeyer wrote:


I don't care at all about the delay. However, I think they screwed up by having a set date in the first place. If there is one thing Bethesda does right, it is not announcing games until they're about ready to release. Fallout 4 was announced in June and released in November. Given it was Bethesda, I'm sure it was a buggy mess at first (side note I'm 70 hours into a came with 80 mods running and no bugs so make of that what you will).

CDPR announced Cyberpunk 2077 in 2013 and released a demo trailer in 2018. Why?

CDPR has to work by a different set of rules than Bethesda does. The original announcement - which was just a quick teaser trailer - was an indication that CDPR was working on something beyond The Witcher. The third Witcher game was released in 2015. That's five years since then with no new big releases (Blood and Wine was released the following year, in 2016; so four years, if you want to include that). CDPR has investors, and those investors need to know that the company is doing *something* productive with the money that's been given to the company. Incidentally, a while back CDPR revealed that it was also working on another title, but has released no information about that title. We don't know anything about it other than the fact that it exists.

There are two things to note. The first is the SARS2 mess, which I don't think anyone could have foreseen. It's possible that the game would be finished if it weren't for that. The second is that I don't think you can fault CDPR for the November 19th release date. That date was so set in stone that marketing materials were released, and big public ads were running on the sides of public transportation advertising the game. The game was less than a month away from release when the current delay was announced. *NOT* having an announced release date at this point would have been strange, and would have made the marketing campaign very difficult.

Now if the game slips again, and it misses this year's Christmas season, then it might be an indication that CDPR's management has been ignoring some glaring warnings about problems with the game's development.

CDPR has some issues in regards to managment AND worker conditions, no two ways about it, when you look at reviews from former staff there etc...

I think pretty much the entire video games industry has management issues and is abysmal on worker conditions.

That crunch is such an accepted and expected part of the job of a developer is proof enough on the management front.

To support that you have really high profile cases of project management failure such as Mass Effect: Andromeda, Anthem, LA Noire, Duke Nukem Forever etc.

With worker conditions you have crunch (present pretty much everywhere), sexual harrassment (hello Ubisoft), abusive management (McNamara at Team Bondi) and so on.

It's a dream job with thousands of eager applicants willing to "do anything" for it. Until they enter the mill and get burned out in a few years and replaced by another wide-eyed youth. Anything short of legislation will fail to fix the problem as developers know that their more junior developers are easily replaceable.

I might be a psyker lol as when I began going to bed I thought: +I wouldn't be surprised if CD Projekt Red delayed Cyberpunk 2077 again.+

Then the next morning I check my Facebook and there was the announcement saying it was delayed again.

Might be stopping posting here as soon the Black Ships might be taking me lol.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think pretty much the entire video games industry has management issues and is abysmal on worker conditions.

That crunch is such an accepted and expected part of the job of a developer is proof enough on the management front.

To support that you have really high profile cases of project management failure such as Mass Effect: Andromeda, Anthem, LA Noire, Duke Nukem Forever etc.

With worker conditions you have crunch (present pretty much everywhere), sexual harrassment (hello Ubisoft), abusive management (McNamara at Team Bondi) and so on.

indeed.

And even if you consider crunch as an necessary evil for especially small to middle scale companies neither applies to the industry giants nor do they lack the funds to avoid it alltogether. And even such small companies in other industries, f.e. machine industry a strong JIT group over here, even they compensate alot more and are forced to uphold higher standards and often go voluntarily even further then the minimal standards just to retain skill.

Further not even these companies have on every bloody project they do the necessity of forcing crunch, which goes to show the hybris of game publishers and developpers especially in the higher echelons even more.

That the groundfloor "cannonfodder" is easily replacable is just icing for most of the companies involved in the game buissness.

Totally agree.

Personally, I doubt many project managers in the video game industry have ever seen a Gantt chart, let alone know how to construct one.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Totally agree.

Personally, I doubt many project managers in the video game industry have ever seen a Gantt chart, let alone know how to construct one.

A simple excel sheet + hand times pie + worker experience should normally do the trick aswell.
When small companies do that successfully and retain their staff and don't have "stress-casualities" then it goes to show the lackluster skills of the VG industries management.

Hopefully they'll stay on target now, what with them releasing the last Nightcity Wire yesterday. They've also released an updated system requirements chart:



Can run it on recommended.

Ugh. I'm not sure.
I've still got a 980Ti, which on benchmarks is significantly better than a basic 1060 (as in 15-20 FPS depending on 1080/1440/ultrawide).

But its a 5 year old card now, and I don't have any idea if CD Projket bothered to optimize that far back.

Everything else is a non-issue, except maybe freeing space on the SSD.

May have to do some extra digging to see what people are saying when it hits. Don't want to deal with a GPU upgrade anytime soon.

Must admit, was expecting it to take up more than 70GB

Seems about right to me, even a bit high, really.
Witcher 3 with all the DLC is just shy of 50GB
Total Warhammer 2 is 56

Voss wrote:
Ugh. I'm not sure.
I've still got a 980Ti, which on benchmarks is significantly better than a basic 1060 (as in 15-20 FPS depending on 1080/1440/ultrawide).

But its a 5 year old card now, and I don't have any idea if CD Projket bothered to optimize that far back.

Everything else is a non-issue, except maybe freeing space on the SSD.

May have to do some extra digging to see what people are saying when it hits. Don't want to deal with a GPU upgrade anytime soon.

You beat out the minimum, from the look of things.

I finally got around to replacing my card at the start of this month specifically due to this game. But it was a 750. So it was a bit overdue...

I don't think my i7 960 can handle any of that, even with twin TITANS (one of which is kinda on the fritz).

Hell, my original CPU, a i7-3930K, would struggle with this.

Woohoo, my $500 box can run it on borderline-recommended.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Totally agree.

Personally, I doubt many project managers in the video game industry have ever seen a Gantt chart, let alone know how to construct one.

A simple excel sheet + hand times pie + worker experience should normally do the trick aswell.
When small companies do that successfully and retain their staff and don't have "stress-casualities" then it goes to show the lackluster skills of the VG industries management.

Maybe video game development is just too time variable to put good estimates on. We're talking a company with around 1,100 employees and in the realm of a half a billion in revenue, I'm sure they have some project managers in there. The problems come when different parts of a project are both dependent on each other but also difficult to predict on timing. Then project managers who are pushed to achieve things in the shortest time possible due to the immense running costs where every day of added time could cost in the millions and you end up with a lot of stress and difficult to achieve timelines.

Voss wrote:
Seems about right to me, even a bit high, really.
Witcher 3 with all the DLC is just shy of 50GB
Total Warhammer 2 is 56

But then FFXV is 100GB, Red Dead Redemption 2 is 150GB.

Eumerin wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ugh. I'm not sure.
I've still got a 980Ti, which on benchmarks is significantly better than a basic 1060 (as in 15-20 FPS depending on 1080/1440/ultrawide).

But its a 5 year old card now, and I don't have any idea if CD Projket bothered to optimize that far back.

Everything else is a non-issue, except maybe freeing space on the SSD.

May have to do some extra digging to see what people are saying when it hits. Don't want to deal with a GPU upgrade anytime soon.

You beat out the minimum, from the look of things.

I finally got around to replacing my card at the start of this month specifically due to this game. But it was a 750. So it was a bit overdue...

Beating the minimum generally isn't enough for a graphics heavy first person game. Usually means stuttering, overall low FPS and 'technically playable.' Pretty bad for a fast paced shooter/melee game.

I'd rather be around high at least, but uncertainty about managing recommend is not a place I'm happy being.
That said, I did some digging, and a 2060 is only about 13% faster than the 980ti for the witcher 3, so it might not be a total lost cause.
I was planning on waiting at least a week or two anyway, so I'll have time to see how it works out for other people.


@Malus
/shrug. Red dead just sounds utterly bloated, and ffxv isn't much better.

their own previous game with the same base engine is a more reasonable comparison, and an increase of about a third isn't out of line. Especially since its more visually flashy

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Voss wrote:
Seems about right to me, even a bit high, really.
Witcher 3 with all the DLC is just shy of 50GB
Total Warhammer 2 is 56

But then FFXV is 100GB, Red Dead Redemption 2 is 150GB.

RDR is only 116GB on my PC.

But yeah, 70GB is on the smaller side for a game these days. Witcher 3 is more than 5 years old, TWW2 is 3 years old, so pretty much a generation or two old.

A few games I've installed recently have been in the 100GB range, CODMW was probably the stupidest one weighing in at about 200GB.

I bought a 2TB SSD because it was starting to get a bit silly, lol. Discovered there was basically no practical difference between an NVMe SSD and a top range SATA one, so went for a big arse SATA rather than an NVMe (sure, NVMe is faster in benchmarks, but in actual OS and game load times it seems there's negligible difference).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ugh. I'm not sure.
I've still got a 980Ti, which on benchmarks is significantly better than a basic 1060 (as in 15-20 FPS depending on 1080/1440/ultrawide).

But its a 5 year old card now, and I don't have any idea if CD Projket bothered to optimize that far back.

Everything else is a non-issue, except maybe freeing space on the SSD.

May have to do some extra digging to see what people are saying when it hits. Don't want to deal with a GPU upgrade anytime soon.

You beat out the minimum, from the look of things.

I finally got around to replacing my card at the start of this month specifically due to this game. But it was a 750. So it was a bit overdue...

Beating the minimum generally isn't enough for a graphics heavy first person game. Usually means stuttering, overall low FPS and 'technically playable.' Pretty bad for a fast paced shooter/melee game.

I'd rather be around high at least, but uncertainty about managing recommend is not a place I'm happy being.
That said, I did some digging, and a 2060 is only about 13% faster than the 980ti for the witcher 3, so it might not be a total lost cause.
I was planning on waiting at least a week or two anyway, so I'll have time to see how it works out for other people.

There's not much of a pattern to minimum specs. Some games run fine at minimum specs, others will be stuttery. Some games don't even have to run at minimum settings if running minimum spec. I don't think there's any standards defining how minimum specs should be determined.

Best just to wait for some benchmarks to come out if you're concerned about that.

My PC looks to fall in around the "High" level, so like most other modern games I'm expecting to be able to play a little bit off max settings.

TW3 and TW2 were both well optimised for their times, so hopefully this will be also.

@Malus
/shrug. Red dead just sounds utterly bloated, and ffxv isn't much better.

their own previous game with the same base engine is a more reasonable comparison, and an increase of about a third isn't out of line. Especially since is more visually flashy

It's big textures and detailed meshes that end up with big file sizes. As video card memory rises, publishers can include higher quality textures and game file sizes increase. Also people are increasingly on unlimited broadband plans, so there's probably not a hell of a lot of motivation for publishers to make themselves more efficient (I feel sorry for any gamer still on a metered plan...)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Voss wrote:
Seems about right to me, even a bit high, really.
Witcher 3 with all the DLC is just shy of 50GB
Total Warhammer 2 is 56

But then FFXV is 100GB, Red Dead Redemption 2 is 150GB.

RDR is only 116GB on my PC.

But yeah, 70GB is on the smaller side for a game these days. Witcher 3 is more than 5 years old, TWW2 is 3 years old, so pretty much a generation or two old.

A few games I've installed recently have been in the 100GB range, CODMW was probably the stupidest one weighing in at about 200GB.

I bought a 2TB SSD because it was starting to get a bit silly, lol. Discovered there was basically no practical difference between an NVMe SSD and a top range SATA one, so went for a big arse SATA rather than an NVMe (sure, NVMe is faster in benchmarks, but in actual OS and game load times it seems there's negligible difference).

Geez. I thought 70 gigs was on the higher scale of things. Highest ones that come to mind are CoD WW2 and Shadow of War at 100 gigs each, but those sounded like outliers. Haven’t even touched Doom or Tekken 7 due to the ludicrous installation size (60GB and 70GB respectively) for their length.

Only thing that comes to mind is the possibility that Cyberpunk pulled a Vermintide and made the scenery out of miles and miles of walkable entities, but then Divinity OS2 is around 60 without this issue,

Shadow of war is a pretty old game now.

Cool info: I read the global release time is 1AM in Poland on the 10th. That means if you're in an earlier timezone, you can start playing on the 9th. 6PM for me on the 9th here in Texas. Woohoo! My body is ready.

My birthday is the 9th, and while I am salty about not being about to like.. do anything, it will be a nice consolation prize to be able to play this.... assuming it actually drops.

I wonder what my performance is going to look like. I have an RTX 2080 super, but my monitor is an ultrawide so it's like 3440x1400p or something weird like that.