Cyberpunk 2077’s Devs Explain The $30 Expansion Price Tag That’s Raising Eyebrows
Cyberpunk 2077’s Devs Explain The $30 Expansion Price Tag That’s Raising Eyebrows
The expansion costs nearly as much as both Witcher 3 expansions, and CD Projekt Red explains why
Tl;dr; expansion pretty much change whole game, reworks core game mechanics and adds whole new district. Plus Idris Elba and more of Keanu with expansion having almost as much lines as core game.
You're viewing a single thread.
Fairly-priced expansions are 10000x better than garbage micro-transactions and DLC, I don't get why anyone would be annoyed with this
Literally this. Even in older games journalism there was a difference between additional content and true expansions. We used to call developers out for labelling something as an expansion that didn't have enough additional content. This is pretty close to what full expansions used to cost ($20-25 is what I remember for something like Shadows of Amn), and the amount of additional content fits.
I think a lot of people are used to the incremental and constant content release for live services games that are generally free. More is not always better, though...and free is not always free lol.
Wouldn't the controversy be that Cyberpunk is incomplete, and this expansion is actually the finished game?
I don't get that. Cyberpunk is by no means perfect. But how is it not a complete game? I put in a ton of hours and thoroughly enjoyed it. Are you saying that because the AI was bad, it's incomplete? Cause very, very few games are complete if that's the benchmark we use.
It got over hyped, but capital G gamers did what they do best and blew it out of proportion as if someone kicked their baby.
Note: I played on PC several months after launch. Maybe it was incomplete when it came out, but it sure as hell ain't now.
I think additional content is fine, even if it's expanding the story. That's not super unusual even going back years ago to Baldurs Gate 2's expansion finishing the story, and is often referred to as a trilogy due to the expansion, or Lord of Destruction.
It sounds like the changes made to the base game will be implemented even if you don't buy this DLC which is good. Base game changes and improvements to AI shouldn't be sold separately.
This is one of the things I love about Paradox games, when they release expansions they always release a free big patch with them to include all the non-expansion stuff.
If there was something that was incomplete about Cyberpunk, it was the stuff that they've done to the game up to this expansion that fixed problems it launched with. A game isn't incomplete just because they add more to it later.
the overhaul is free though so you're only paying for new story content
It's weird to me that people say it was ever unfinished (prev gen consoles aside) It was buggy and wasn't the life simulator nerds wanted but the story is among the best in video games and the game play is incredibly satisfying. While also having the best looking graphics of any game to date.
There wouldn't be any controversy if people stopped buying unfinished games, though.
Once you've bought it, you've signaled that it's complete enough for you.
The totality of those expansions in a lot of cases ended up costing $30 and having similar amounts of content. Dishonored had two story DLCs for $15 each, part 1 and part 2. So...that's $30. Yeah, if there's a controversy here, there shouldn't be.
100%. Charge me what you think is a fair price for your content and I'll pay for it if I also agree that it's a fair price. I prefer to pay for a full game, and then pay for actual expansions. I will not buy a battlepass or pay for microtransactions, no matter what. Funny enough, if a game is free, I usually immediately write it off as likely MTX-filled nonsense, but if they throw a $70 price tag on it and don't add MTX, I'm more likely to play it. Maybe I'm just getting old, lol.
For predominantly single-player games, I fully agree. Sell me a meaty expansion, don't trickle things out as little pieces of DLC.
I don't think the expansion model really works for multiplayer games though. You end up fracturing the community. It's why I think cosmetic microtransactions are a net positive, but only in the context of multiplayer. It's why games like Apex, Fortnite, and CSGO are not only still relevant, but actively updated and improved for so many years after their release.
MMOs have done expansions well. I personally wouldn't ever pay money for micro transaction cosmetics, but I will buy every decent expansion for an MMO I'm playing.