Tweet
Review aggregate website, OpenCritic, has added a warning to their Cyberpunk 2077 page. The warning is focused mainly on the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 versions of the game. This is due largely to the fact that while the game is a performance-lacking and bug-filled mess on all platforms, it is especially bad on the last-generation of consoles.
The warning on the site reads as follows:
Please note: This game has significant disparities in performance, player experience, and review scores between the PC, next-gen consoles, Xbox One, and PS4 versions.
The OpenCritic team and several critics suspect that the developer, CD PROJEKT RED, intentionally sought to hide the true state of the game on Xbox One and PS4, with requirements such as only allowing pre-rendered game footage in reviews and not issuing review copies for PS4 and Xbox One versions.
This notice will be taken down in February 2021.
The OpenCritic team and several critics suspect that the developer, CD PROJEKT RED, intentionally sought to hide the true state of the game on Xbox One and PS4, with requirements such as only allowing pre-rendered game footage in reviews and not issuing review copies for PS4 and Xbox One versions.
This notice will be taken down in February 2021.
What gamers didn't know is that, behind the scenes, CD PROJEKT RED appears to have been deliberately attempting to misrepresent its product.
The incentive was there. Up until last Friday, the developers believed that their bonuses were contingent upon hitting 90 or higher on Metacritic, according to a report from Bloomberg. As a result, the individual developers and publishers had ample incentive to distribute review codes in a way that maximized their aggregate scores and secured their bonus.
In this case, they issued PC review copies to publications with high-end PCs and required that they not show any of their own gameplay recordings. They allowed no one to discuss or review the game on the Xbox One or PlayStation 4 consoles.
They did this knowing that their game had severe performance issues on Xbox One and PlayStation 4, which were its target launch consoles given its published its debut trailer in 2013 and initial April 2020 launch date. They did this knowing that the visual bugs that you would see in a video were jarring enough to make many question their preorder. They knew that, if the console version were to be reviewed, it would receive negative reviews due to its performance issues and hurt the game's launch day sales.
They did it knowing that many publications generally can't re-review games. It's not part of their business model. The second review creates confusion with their audience in addition to dampening SEO and Google keyword rankings. Second reviews won't rank high on news aggregators, such as Google News or Apple News, because it's a topic that's been covered by them before. Second reviews also typically come after a game's launch, when many consumers have already decided whether or not to buy a game, and thus don't attract the same readership. Finally, Metacritic generally does not accept edited or updated review scores.
They did it knowing that, to this day, it is still challenging for consumers to return a video game. Physical retailers generally require that games be unopened in order to be returned. Digital retailers have tight controls on their return polices, with many (notably, consoles) not offering returns at all.
The incentive was there. Up until last Friday, the developers believed that their bonuses were contingent upon hitting 90 or higher on Metacritic, according to a report from Bloomberg. As a result, the individual developers and publishers had ample incentive to distribute review codes in a way that maximized their aggregate scores and secured their bonus.
In this case, they issued PC review copies to publications with high-end PCs and required that they not show any of their own gameplay recordings. They allowed no one to discuss or review the game on the Xbox One or PlayStation 4 consoles.
They did this knowing that their game had severe performance issues on Xbox One and PlayStation 4, which were its target launch consoles given its published its debut trailer in 2013 and initial April 2020 launch date. They did this knowing that the visual bugs that you would see in a video were jarring enough to make many question their preorder. They knew that, if the console version were to be reviewed, it would receive negative reviews due to its performance issues and hurt the game's launch day sales.
They did it knowing that many publications generally can't re-review games. It's not part of their business model. The second review creates confusion with their audience in addition to dampening SEO and Google keyword rankings. Second reviews won't rank high on news aggregators, such as Google News or Apple News, because it's a topic that's been covered by them before. Second reviews also typically come after a game's launch, when many consumers have already decided whether or not to buy a game, and thus don't attract the same readership. Finally, Metacritic generally does not accept edited or updated review scores.
They did it knowing that, to this day, it is still challenging for consumers to return a video game. Physical retailers generally require that games be unopened in order to be returned. Digital retailers have tight controls on their return polices, with many (notably, consoles) not offering returns at all.
The way everything surrounding this game has been handled has been abysmal.
