Comments

  • the excellent movie 'Barfly' is the only thing I've seen FS in. and he was very good as the creep macho bar tender. that was back when Mickey Rourke was still an actor.
  • It's almost like an industry with a "no refunds" policy across the board doesn't incentivize giving a shiat.
  • Norm MacDonald - Why I Stopped Doing Frank Stallone Jokes
    Youtube qw-rR1tNFM4
  • ModernLuddite: It's almost like an industry with a "no refunds" policy across the board doesn't incentivize giving a shiat.


    The only thing that's on the console manufacturer (or pc digital store front) is verifying the game doesn't cause damage to the unit it's being played on, not the quality of the game itself.

    Why should they offer refunds for a product that technically fits their certification process, just like every other product before it, when it's on the developer for releasing what they knew was a broken mess of a game?

    I can understand why they did (to save face, really).
  • envirovore: Why should they offer refunds for a product that technically fits their certification process, just like every other product before it, when it's on the developer for releasing what they knew was a broken mess of a game?


    If you don't want dealing with returns to be your problem then you shouldn't be the one selling it.
  • Klyukva: envirovore: Why should they offer refunds for a product that technically fits their certification process, just like every other product before it, when it's on the developer for releasing what they knew was a broken mess of a game?

    If you don't want dealing with returns to be your problem then you shouldn't be the one selling it.


    Again, it's not on Sony, Microsoft, Steam, Epic, etc to be sure the product is 'bug' free, only that it doesn't damage the hardware it's running on in any way.

    For all they knew, the condition the game shipped in was the build intended to go public, and as it met standards for certification (as in it doesn't cause any damage in any way to any of the hardware it runs on), it gets released.

    The only technical point of failure in this whole process has been CDPR
  • Lets talk about how the Cyberpunk 2077 certification process worked | MVG
    Youtube HLaWLIEtGBo
  • envirovore: Klyukva: envirovore: Why should they offer refunds for a product that technically fits their certification process, just like every other product before it, when it's on the developer for releasing what they knew was a broken mess of a game?

    If you don't want dealing with returns to be your problem then you shouldn't be the one selling it.

    Again, it's not on Sony, Microsoft, Steam, Epic, etc to be sure the product is 'bug' free, only that it doesn't damage the hardware it's running on in any way.

    For all they knew, the condition the game shipped in was the build intended to go public, and as it met standards for certification (as in it doesn't cause any damage in any way to any of the hardware it runs on), it gets released.

    The only technical point of failure in this whole process has been CDPR


    Okay. So it's not their fault. But if they took the money in exchange for the product, they're the ones who give the money back when the product is returned. That's how running a store works. If the middlemen think CDPR did them dirty it's on them to seek recourse separately.
  • It's kind of strange to watch a guy lying in a second language.
  • ModernLuddite: It's almost like an industry with a "no refunds" policy across the board doesn't incentivize giving a shiat.


    Or you can RTFA and see that there were refunds.
  • envirovore: ModernLuddite: It's almost like an industry with a "no refunds" policy across the board doesn't incentivize giving a shiat.

    The only thing that's on the console manufacturer (or pc digital store front) is verifying the game doesn't cause damage to the unit it's being played on, not the quality of the game itself.

    Why should they offer refunds for a product that technically fits their certification process, just like every other product before it, when it's on the developer for releasing what they knew was a broken mess of a game?

    I can understand why they did (to save face, rea

    envirovore: Klyukva: envirovore: Why should they offer refunds for a product that technically fits their certification process, just like every other product before it, when it's on the developer for releasing what they knew was a broken mess of a game?

    If you don't want dealing with returns to be your problem then you shouldn't be the one selling it.

    Again, it's not on Sony, Microsoft, Steam, Epic, etc to be sure the product is 'bug' free, only that it doesn't damage the hardware it's running on in any way.

    For all they knew, the condition the game shipped in was the build intended to go public, and as it met standards for certification (as in it doesn't cause any damage in any way to any of the hardware it runs on), it gets released.

    The only technical point of failure in this whole process has been CDPR


    There is way more to their standards than damaging the hardware.
  • Resin33: envirovore: ModernLuddite: It's almost like an industry with a "no refunds" policy across the board doesn't incentivize giving a shiat.

    The only thing that's on the console manufacturer (or pc digital store front) is verifying the game doesn't cause damage to the unit it's being played on, not the quality of the game itself.

    Why should they offer refunds for a product that technically fits their certification process, just like every other product before it, when it's on the developer for releasing what they knew was a broken mess of a game?

    I can understand why they did (to save face, reaenvirovore: Klyukva: envirovore: Why should they offer refunds for a product that technically fits their certification process, just like every other product before it, when it's on the developer for releasing what they knew was a broken mess of a game?

    If you don't want dealing with returns to be your problem then you shouldn't be the one selling it.

    Again, it's not on Sony, Microsoft, Steam, Epic, etc to be sure the product is 'bug' free, only that it doesn't damage the hardware it's running on in any way.

    For all they knew, the condition the game shipped in was the build intended to go public, and as it met standards for certification (as in it doesn't cause any damage in any way to any of the hardware it runs on), it gets released.

    The only technical point of failure in this whole process has been CDPR

    There is way more to their standards than damaging the hardware.


    For certification to be published on MS or Sony's platform? If you're a well known developer/AAA developer, No, there isn't really.
    The certification process is really only to verify the game doesn't do anything that could cause damage to the machine, not quality of the game itself (though apparently some smaller games/developers will get a quality check).

    Given the amount of and size of games (and the amount of content continuing to be pushed to them) getting anything released after MS or Sony quality test a game to whatever they feel a standard to be would be a daunting process, and one that I can understand them not wanting to dedicate the man hours to outside of their respective in house games.

    If a developer wants to lie about and then release a broken game, that's on the developer. If customers want to blindly buy into a hype train and pay top dollar for a product before it's released, well, there's multiple sayings for that...

    I'm not saying they shouldn't have issued refunds for a game that was given to them in an obviously broken state.
    I agree it was right of them to do so, even though technically they didn't have to as what they were given was a product that met the technical standard to be sold and continue to be sold in that state as the developer promised future updates to resolve any issues/bugs.

    Using the example up thread, if this were a physical product gone to market it never would have passed the certification process, as it'd result in breakage of some sort (either product, or human, or both).
  • envirovore: Resin33: envirovore: ModernLuddite: It's almost like an industry with a "no refunds" policy across the board doesn't incentivize giving a shiat.

    The only thing that's on the console manufacturer (or pc digital store front) is verifying the game doesn't cause damage to the unit it's being played on, not the quality of the game itself.

    Why should they offer refunds for a product that technically fits their certification process, just like every other product before it, when it's on the developer for releasing what they knew was a broken mess of a game?

    I can understand why they did (to save face, reaenvirovore: Klyukva: envirovore: Why should they offer refunds for a product that technically fits their certification process, just like every other product before it, when it's on the developer for releasing what they knew was a broken mess of a game?

    If you don't want dealing with returns to be your problem then you shouldn't be the one selling it.

    Again, it's not on Sony, Microsoft, Steam, Epic, etc to be sure the product is 'bug' free, only that it doesn't damage the hardware it's running on in any way.

    For all they knew, the condition the game shipped in was the build intended to go public, and as it met standards for certification (as in it doesn't cause any damage in any way to any of the hardware it runs on), it gets released.

    The only technical point of failure in this whole process has been CDPR

    There is way more to their standards than damaging the hardware.

    For certification to be published on MS or Sony's platform? If you're a well known developer/AAA developer, No, there isn't really.
    The certification process is really only to verify the game doesn't do anything that could cause damage to the machine, not quality of the game itself (though apparently some smaller games/developers will get a quality check).

    Given the amount of and size of games (and the amount of content continuing to be pushed to them) getting anything released after MS or Sony qu ...


    I mean, I haven't worked on a console game in 7 years but back on PS2/PS3 generation, the approval guidelines were pretty significant. I doubt they have become more lax as the systems get more complicated. Back then when games came out all shiatty, it was with an agreement with Sony/MS to release a Day 1 patch to fix it.
  • Resin33:I mean, I haven't worked on a console game in 7 years but back on PS2/PS3 generation, the approval guidelines were pretty significant. I doubt they have become more lax as the systems get more complicated. Back then when games came out all shiatty, it was with an agreement with Sony/MS to release a Day 1 patch to fix it.

    I believe there was, in fact, a day one patch.  Problem is, it didn't fix all the issues the game has.  And it has a ton, even on PC.  It's a very complicated game and I think the developers (and their financial backers) just bit off more than they could chew.  You can tell that with six months more development time the game would have been fine.  I'll bet Covid made Q & A more difficult, as there was less immediate feedback on such (or they skipped on such to rush it out the door).  The game was already delayed several times, the money people clearly said no to another delay, even though it was desperately needed.
  • I really am enjoying the game. I haven't had any game breaking bugs on pc. Sure, some glitchy NPC's every now and then that seem to work themselves out. I enjoy the gameplay, the vibrant city. The story isn't bad - not fantastic but not terrible by any means.

    The only glitch I seem to get is every now and then after I've been playing for a while, I seem to get stuck in first person view in vehicles. Restarting the game fixes this.

    Other thing on my wishlist is having the minimap zoom out a bit when you're travelling at speed.
    I'm constantly missing turns in the Caliburn :)

    I honestly don't get the hate. I would have happily waited another six months for things to be a bit more polished but i'm hopeful CDPR will release patches addressing the major issues.
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.


Close