I think I see what's going on. Different use of the term "optimise".

The Witcher 3 did technically run on PC when it came out, but got nowhere near even 60fps on a high-end PC because it was badly optimised. I think JacobFel is using this term for optimisation.

And what you mean is that it runs on the advertised platform. Technically TW3 did that when it came out.

Cyberpunk 2077 was badly optimised for PC, but broken on PS4.

I was actually surprised that they kept PS4 and Xbox as platforms and did not change the target from PS4/Xbox to PS5/XBSX when the first gameplay demos came out. But I guess prior agreements prevented them from dropping the old gen consoles. And possibly shareholders who still wanted to tap into the PS4/Xbox market.

We are probably using it in a slightly different way, but it is clear that function and optimization cannot be separated, unless we are to reinvent this space by saying that publishers are only advertising games that will fire up, but they do not have to run at acceptable levels. When they include the specs and platforms, they are clearly stating that they optimized the game to run acceptably on the advertised specs and platforms. People make their decision based on the understanding that both function and optimization will meet the standard levels of acceptability. This level is dictated by their peers that are in the same space; in this case, it is box office "AAA" gaming —They are no longer an indy development team.

I believe they did not hire enough people to do this job. RDR2 had around 2500 devs. and it isn't as structurally complex as developing a compact, living and breathing city. They could have started from the ground up and made some compromises to meet last gen. tech (this is where they attacked the market) with a larger team, but they knowingly ignored this and instead spent a fortune by grabbing actors' "special parts" and on marketing. They didn't need this, they already had the weight of TW3 and their once awesome reputation behind them. The mismanagement in this instance is astounding, no, actually it is quite shocking that people in upper management let this business strategy leave the door.

I get what you're saying otherwise, but this part... Have you ever played any, say, Ubisoft or Bethesda game on launch day? Like, any of them?

This is the situation where we're at. Not trying to justify CDPR launching an unfinished game, but more lamenting that this is the world we live in.

I'd also like to stress that a game having bugs does not make it an unfinished game. People throw the "unfinished" thing around as much as they throw "DRM" around but in reality, an unfinished game is a game that doesn't have a complete story, is missing gameplay mechanics, parts of the world aren't finished, etc. Cyberpunk had a full story, its world was complete and with the exception of very minor cut content, the gameplay systems are all there. So yeah, it's a finished game, but it definitely was buggy. No worse than any other major open world RPG (particularly Bethesda games) but buggy nonetheless.

Additionally, it's inevitable that games like this will be massively buggy on launch, you just can't avoid that. It's unfortunate but it's reality.

Even UbI and Bethesda games (even 76) launch games in a better state (I play on console. PC is always wracked with port issues and launch issues). So, yes. And next comparing CDPR to Bethesda is lower the bar very low to make excuses for CDPR, which doesn't make sense and doesn't really contradict what I am saying.
CDPR released this game on last gen. consoles. This game was and still is unfinished on last gen. consoles. This doesn't mean that there is no story etc. Comparing CDPR to Bethesda is a copout. The same as ignoring function and optimization.

True, but a placeholder AI instead of a working police or NPC AI can be counted as unfinished. I much rather hope that it is still under development than accept that this is it.

In general we are not here. There are more "AAA" games that are released in way better states than Cyberpunk. Actually the CP2077 release would cause for relegation if they were a football team.

We are not at this point. This is objective not subjective. The only other "AAA" big box office release that can even be in the same space (in recent times, not Colonial Marines of Metal Gear Survive lol) would be Fallout 76 and that game still ran better on release than CP2077. I'm not talking about just bugs here. CP2077 still won't even render properly on last gen. consoles. This is the very minimum to be considered. I'm not asking for anything crazy just maybe try not to rip off their fans/customers next time and fix the game for the platforms they advertised it for.

All in all I do agree with you, large gaming companies have become extremely sleazy.

When was the last time that an open world RPG (specifically one with plenty of sandbox elements) was released and didn't have major bug issues at launch? Shoot, even open world action-adventure games like RDR2 launched with major bugs (especially on PC).

You're mixing up "feature complete" and "finished". As a dev I can tell you that "feature complete" comes way before "finished". When the product is declared feature complete a long QA cycle is still to do: Bugfixing, performance, UX/flow optimisation, stuff like that.

The issue is that by that logic, EVERY game is feature incomplete because every game has cut content.

Um... no. "Feature complete" is declared. It means "We now have the content/functions/mechanics the release version will have. From now on we'll only do optimisation, bug fixing, balancing". This has nothing to do with cut content. If you had a Mercedes S Class in mind but call your Beetle feature complete because you simply want to stop adding stuff - so be it.

Beta versions are usually feature complete. Sometimes a few "nice to have" features are still added in this stage, but everything essential to the product is there. The point is, at this stage the product is still unfinished. Only when all the essential content is there the finalisation can begin.

CP77 may have been declared "feature complete" at release, but it was hardly finished. It clearly lacked QA and optimisation, especially on consoles. No matter other devs like BethSoft handle their releases the same way.

While I realize there are some things that are standard across the entire industry, it'd be ignorant to say that every studio does things the exact same way, especially when said studio is known for doing things differently. "Feature complete" implies that the game has all of the features they planned to add, minus ones they didn't have time for or whatever (which constitutes cut content). It may have a different meaning internally but to us who are either just gamers or hobbyist/solo developers (such as myself), that's what the connotation is.

I would have to firmly disagree with your belief that it was unfinished. An unfinished game would be one like what I described a few posts ago, not a game that has issues with bugs.

This has nothing to do with "belief".

Would you call a game "finished" if it has all the content, but the UI was clearly in a "placeholder" state, nobody cared about balancing out the mechanics, it crashes every time the player does something unexpected, and what not? No, you would call it a beta - and not a finished product, even if - technically - you could play it from start to finish and see all the content.

The question is where you draw the line. Complex software will always have bugs, true. But you can only call your product "finished" when you know "this is the final state we can reasonable live with". If your state is "we know of these bugs and we have to fix them, but after release" - the you're releasing an unfinished product. As long as there's anything (bugs, performance, balancing, UI) that says "we will deal with it" - you're simply not done. It's not that hard to understand.

You call a product finished if you are happy enough with everything in its current state, and you could with good conscience move on to the next project. That's what "finished" means, and that was clearly not the case when CP77 was released. CDPR knew it had serious issues, that they were not done, and they still released it. Maybe feature complete, but unfinished. Like a builder that says "here's your house, but the plastering will come later, and don't mind the cardboard door, you'll get a real one within the year".

Like I wrote, I'm a dev, and I've worked for various companies with various approaches to software development. But the definition of what "finished" means never changed a lot. I don't think the game developers use a very different definition. It just has become a kind of bad industry standard to release unfinished software (not only games, just look at the mess that is Windows) and let the product ripen with the customer. Banana ware, we call that.

It absolutely DOES have to do with belief. You claim it's unfinished and that's entirely your opinion, an opinion that I disagree with.