Why? That wouldn't be fair to the employees and their hard work
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
- Status
Whether this thing bombs or succeeds has no bearing on how cdpr's abused devs are treated or mistreated. It's not like the individual developer is going to benefit if the game does really well.
You're not understanding. All the hard work they put in they don't want their work to fail
They might not want to see the financial success of a company that's outwardly bigoted, underhanded and funnels money to a billionaire while upholding toxic working conditions for those toward the bottom.
Speaking to fairness of developers in response is an odd thing to put on the consumer when many of them have been treated unfairly through the development of the game. Where has fairness been for them when being lied to about crunch, put under the bootheel and had the working conditions they endure downplayed by their bosses. Why is the onus on the consumer to be the ones fair to the developers, instead of their employers and at the cost of giving incentive to these practices?
And what is that damage?
I don't remember ever delays, crunch, social issue, work culture in general etc. having any affect on critic scores or even get mentioned in reviews.
With the delay CDPR can make sure that most will play the review version on PS5/XSX (i think big sites usually just get console codes for AAA games).
If it had to be played on a PS4/XB1, it'd probably get quite a bit lower score if the rumours about the game not working on them too well are true.
If it had to be played on a PS4/XB1, it'd probably get quite a bit lower score if the rumours about the game not working on them too well are true.
Last edited:
I am pretty sure the 2018 E3 demo which they showed behind closed doors and the narrated demo which they released to the public both were vertical slices to generate buzz.
and the footage from this summer had massively reduced NPCs and cars, barely any ambient audio for a Cyberpunk city, empty clubs devoid of people, the car didn´t even react to the ground and looked like its gliding instead of driving, no customizable apartments anymore and so on. something just looked off about the whole game and there seem to be many cut features.
i could see this game turning out to be a massive bummer and being completely different to what people might have imagined.
it also doesn´t help that it comes out exactly when a next gen transition happens and they have no native next gen version ready.
so far i am convinced it will be delayed to march/april 2021, there is no way that this game turned out good in 6months considering the summer footage. it needs more time in the oven.
Last edited:
Lol now we have game devs caring way too much about Metacritic jfc. Review scores should honestly just not be a thing anymore, the community and industry have just become far too obsessed with them.
I thought that the employees were getting profit sharing for this year? Or was that debunked as well. If it's true, that could be a huge incentive for them to get the game out this year and be successful.
Will anyone even review on the base hardware? Oh well guess they need to "blame" something. Also think if the game is good it won't be getting lower review scores, wasn't the shit working conditions in studios like Naughty Dogs or Rockstar also known before reviews and they got no points docked for it :/
I wont be shocked if many straight out review it by playing it on next-gen HW.
CDPR gives its employees an annual bonus of a percent of the profit the company made in the previous year. This year due to the forced crunch they increased the percentage to 10% - 10% of all earned revenues in 2020 are being split between the employees.
So yes, in this case individual developers will indeed benefit if the game does well.
That's what I was wondering with the new release; how much current (PS4 etc.) performance will factor into a score come December.
And the revenue in 2020 is for less than a month due to all the delays
Do you have a source for a change to all employees receiving 10%? This was from a recent (last month) conversation from a former developer who gave insights into the development of Cyberpunk as recent as it going gold.
CDPR could put it into review guidelines that playing on e.g. PS4Pro is encouraged if not demanded, but then not too surprised if they leave it up to reviewers. They just ship them that PS4 copy and reviewers decide into which machine they put disc into.
lmao hell no you can't seriously think this, can you?
People here practically fucking masturbate over metacritic scores! Review threads are very much full of people who are obsessed with the idea of the aggregate score being equivalent to a game's worth, both in itself and how it compares with other games even within the same score. It constantly leads to people being incredibly gross about any critic who dares to criticize a game, especially for anything that's not a technical issue. It is a horrible and harmful part of the site's culture and I really wish the policy on review threads was entirely reworked to severely discourage that kind of mentality, prioritizing its effects over people's enjoyment.
I sure disagree with that early post that said the site was the second worst one after 4chan, but if you limit it to the second worst in terms of how it's messed with the brains of posters here, it's probably accurate!
Agree there. Just unsure whether performance issues on last/this gen would hit the overall score much being close to a month in to the next generation. If it runs flawlessly on PS5 but takes a hit on PS4, would it get marked down? Honestly don't know and something I hadn't really considered until we had an example going from prior to after with CP77.
I would of been surprised if review scores weren't 90+ before the delay. The fact that Metacritic still plays a large roll on game development is ridiculous
Do you have a source for a change to all employees receiving 10%? This was from a recent (last month) conversation from a former developer who gave insights into the development of Cyberpunk as recent as it going gold.
Even less impressive is that it sounds like they're only getting bonuses for the year the game releases. What about years before and after? I thought standard bonus practice is that people get performance bonuses or bonuses based on company yearly performance(usually a combi of both) every year, regardless of whether they participated in the project or not. At least this seems to be practice in other industries that I know of.
Like getting 1 or 2 months bonus for the whole duration of the project is like peanuts.
I've never seen ERA bash metacritic so much, just to not keep that same energy in review threads or deploy metacritic as a measure of why your favorite game/console is the best because of the scores from said site lol.
Shifting the blame to the consumers is sus af. This "think of the poor devs" argument is diversion.
A call to Era's developers and mods about the "think of the poor devs" argument.
So, a new Harry Potter game has been announced right in the middle of serial escalation of vileness from JKR transphobia (quite a feat in itself, considering her past record, but that's not the point of this thread). Among the usual bad faith arguments to justify purchasing the game, a familiar...
www.resetera.com
☝🏾
Patches and post-launch support means more crunch and then there are additional consumer expectations for the timing of the patches. Only way to reduce crunch would be on a systemic level top-down in the company, which requires a whole rethinking in management and adding protections to workers and unionisation.
Few of those rare more technically critical reviewers would take some points for poor last-gen performance, if they tested many systems, but I can see most just using few sentences to mention how smooth game is on PS5 while chucks on PS4Pro so go PS5 when possible etc.
Assuming our expectation about current-gen / last-gen performance being shoddy ends up being a thing.
I find myself ignoring review threads more and more these days. I tend not to read reviews of games that I already planned to buy, and usually only seek them out for opinions way after. Posters using Metacritic and rotten tomato scores as ammo just drive me nuts.
For sure and either way, I'd be surprised to see it getting less than a 90. Someone mentioned earlier they might be hoping to beat their TW3 score to hit the mid-90's and for that I suppose you're going to err on the side of caution in each case.
Yikes. The fact that they tried to use that bonus system to spin negative PR about crunch is triple Yikes.Do you have a source for a change to all employees receiving 10%? This was from a recent (last month) conversation from a former developer who gave insights into the development of Cyberpunk as recent as it going gold.
Have you actually been in a review thread? Not only is that not laughed at, it's obsessed over for pages and pages and pages. Handwringing over single drops or gains in MC scores, frustration over fine reviews because the score changed the MC, etc.
Seriously arguing a game's worth or comparative quality based on a meta score is the accepted norm in review threads
Shifting the blame to the consumers is sus af. This "think of the poor devs" argument is diversion.
What Kyuuji said:A call to Era's developers and mods about the "think of the poor devs" argument.
So, a new Harry Potter game has been announced right in the middle of serial escalation of vileness from JKR transphobia (quite a feat in itself, considering her past record, but that's not the point of this thread). Among the usual bad faith arguments to justify purchasing the game, a familiar...
☝🏾
Patches and post-launch support means more crunch and then there are additional consumer expectations for the timing of the patches. Only way to reduce crunch would be on a systemic level top-down in the company, which requires a whole rethinking in management and adding protections to workers and unionisation.
I see. Good point!
Let's hope this whole situation brings change, for all developers.
Our mental health is ESPECIALLY important at this time. <3
Bruh....
Come on man. Xbox never had any 90 mc games till Forza Horizon 3. That was fucking celebrated and it made people have to redo their list wars because
Yep, nothing happened in the reviews. I guess now it is a good place to start.
FUCKING LOL. Era is a cesspit filled with corporate bootlicking and handwaving criticisms. Era is barely better than gaf and that is a damn low bar. Metacritic scores are ignored unless they support a given argument for why a game is the best thing since Jesus.
So you wish that all the people who are working extremely hard to get this out the door get screwed? Because they will if this crashes and burns. Burning yourself out to get a game out the door is bad, not reaping any of the reward because the game doesnt make enough would be terrible.
Definitely, it must be hellish for the devs to try to survive these 90-100 hour weeks. I was absolutely shattered when I once did a 60 hour week. I can't imagine the physical, social, relationship, and mental difficulties they're going through 😰
Review scores are incredibly important for the vast majority of people who play games, aggregate scores in particular. While one particular site giving a game a 6 isn't something to be concerned about, if a game starts getting 6s across the board, that becomes a concern.
While it is trendy to say that you don't care about review scores, most people who say that actually do care about them, they just don't want to admit it.
I have to disagree with you here. Maybe you're right when talking about hardcore enthusiasts, but I really don't see that attitude outside of that group. I don't even remember the last time I visited a review aggregating website to decide if I want to play a game or not.
However, I think the biggest problem with how much weight studios give to Metacritic is that, whether intentional or not, you end up making reviewers responsible for what happens with the studio's employees. If CP2077 gets an 89 on Metacritic, all the crunching would be for nothing -- and crunch is already indefensible.
How would you feel if you were reviewing an entertainment product and wanted to give it a score of under 90, but you also know that your review could end up having severe consequences for the devs? I can imagine a few people saying you shouldn't worry about that, but the fact that Metacritic has so much control over this industry is simply not right.
No, it wasn't. It was considered very good, but not really a GOTY material.
Spike VGA awards 2011:
GAME OF THE YEAR The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Nominees: Batman: Arkham City; The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword; Portal 2; Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception.
I'm not talking about how many literal GOTY awards it got from outlets, I'm saying that The Witcher 2 had the sufficient quality to be considered a GOTY contender and one of the best games of the year. If the game had released in say 2014, it would have won easily. The competition in 2011 was simply too much with Skyrim, Portal 2, Uncharted 3, Gears 3, Battlefield 3, Skyward Sword, Arkham City, Forza 4, Killzone 3, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Dark Souls... 2011 was an unusually good year. The best year ever when it comes to video games, in my opinion.
Last edited:
- Status