I'd gladly pay for an expansion, good games need to be kept fresh for as long as possible. The modding wont be enough on this one.
I'd gladly pay for an expansion, good games need to be kept fresh for as long as possible. The modding wont be enough on this one.
What's the point of 'free' DLCs? Why not simply complete those before release?
I've read interviews of CD projekt co-founder saying how he disapproves of DLC with little contents and he intends to provide minor DLCs/additions to the game for free as service. However, this strike me odd that why CDprojekt simply doesn't finish those 'additional contents' and release the game with those.
Initial playthrough is always the most fun part of gaming experience. If CDprojekt are not monetizing on minor DLCs such as additional items or quests, they should simply delay the game and release it with those free-DLC contents and only patch the game for UI improvement, gamer feedbacks, and bugfixes.
This will enable the game
1. to be highly regarded by the critics because noone is going to review TW3 a year after its release
2. hence boost the sale
3. palyers get best expeirence the first time.
Why bother with free-DLC at all? Have those incorperated into the main game! what Imean by this are free items and quests. Other areas could use gamer feedbakcs to improve further with 'patches', not DLCs.
I understand TW1 and TW2 and finiantial/time contraint but I belive it not so with TW3, plus good reviews on game review sites will boost the sale. It's a smart move for everyone.
I've read interviews of CD projekt co-founder saying how he disapproves of DLC with little contents and he intends to provide minor DLCs/additions to the game for free as service. However, this strike me odd that why CDprojekt simply doesn't finish those 'additional contents' and release the game with those.
Initial playthrough is always the most fun part of gaming experience. If CDprojekt are not monetizing on minor DLCs such as additional items or quests, they should simply delay the game and release it with those free-DLC contents and only patch the game for UI improvement, gamer feedbacks, and bugfixes.
This will enable the game
1. to be highly regarded by the critics because noone is going to review TW3 a year after its release
2. hence boost the sale
3. palyers get best expeirence the first time.
Why bother with free-DLC at all? Have those incorperated into the main game! what Imean by this are free items and quests. Other areas could use gamer feedbakcs to improve further with 'patches', not DLCs.
I understand TW1 and TW2 and finiantial/time contraint but I belive it not so with TW3, plus good reviews on game review sites will boost the sale. It's a smart move for everyone.
Because devs don't have infinite time to work on a game if they want to, you know, not go out of business. Thus, they aren't able to do everything they want during any given development cycle. Sometimes, they turn those things into DLC. Also, creative people get ideas at inconvenient times, including after a game is released. Sometimes they turn those things into DLC. There you go. Was that so hard?
Sometimes DLC is also the result of teams or certain departments in a studio that have nothing else to do, be it because they are done with their work or they are waiting for the game to get certified, who knows, it can be any number of reasons. So the company makes them do different things, maybe work on another game, or maybe make some DLC.
To be honest there are so many reasons why any company would come up with DLCs. Especially small ones like we've seen for TW2.
To be honest there are so many reasons why any company would come up with DLCs. Especially small ones like we've seen for TW2.
Yeah because holding back a hundred million dollar project, and profit by months risking your company going under is totally worth adding that additional black tunic, and troll mission.
Well, it's not like releasing free DLC is bad publicity either. Both Enhanced Editions were great additions to the games and, on top of other business practices, what brought CDPR to be considered the good guys of the industry, part of those few who are still on "the gamers' side".
And that can be a much more effective sales boost than relying on a few more swords and small missions to raise any review rating of a more-than-100-hours-long game.
I don't think Witcher 3 is going to be like the Witcher 2 as far as the Enhanced Edition goes. The team that is working on the Witcher 3 is much larger compared to the team that worked on the Witcher 2, and they are more experienced this time around. Also CDPR is now an established company that is financially stronger and can take more risks without the fear of going bankrupt at any minute. In the case of Witcher 2 the team even had to cut out a whole area out of the final game, because they did not have enough time and resources to finish it. And the final chapter was also very short, although they did the best they could. After they released the game, they used the additional time and some of the money from Witcher 2 to add intro, outro, transitional cutscenes between areas, and some additional missions to make the final chapter longer. So they basically went back and fixed what they couldn't do before, because they were out of resources and time. For Witcher 3 they have had enough time to finish the game, and they even delayed the game to make sure they get to make the final version as "Enhanced" as they can. I think for Witcher 3 we are going to see additional missions that take place after the game ends released as additional content after the game is released. I hope that CDPR releases some DLC missions where we get to play as Ciri after Geralt's story concludes.
The difference between CDPR and companies like Ubisoft and EA is that, Ubi and EA plan the DLCs and season passes before the game is even released to make more money. If you know your game is not FINISHED, and there has to be DLCs that you are going to charge for, then they need to be included in the game. A finished game should cost 59.99$, so if you are going to add story content and charge people for it then you are cheating them. In the case of CDPR, they listen to fans and try to improve what the game lacks, and even add some additional missions for free just out of love for their fans.
That's why I respect and love CDPR so much.
The difference between CDPR and companies like Ubisoft and EA is that, Ubi and EA plan the DLCs and season passes before the game is even released to make more money. If you know your game is not FINISHED, and there has to be DLCs that you are going to charge for, then they need to be included in the game. A finished game should cost 59.99$, so if you are going to add story content and charge people for it then you are cheating them. In the case of CDPR, they listen to fans and try to improve what the game lacks, and even add some additional missions for free just out of love for their fans.
That's why I respect and love CDPR so much.
For starters as people have mentioned they don't have infinite time to work on the game. At one point or another they have to send it out for production anything done to the game after that must be patched in, and anything after release that they are working on will be released at a later date. If they put the game out "complete" I doubt we'd ever see it released as they would constantly be changing things, without a deadline or budget it's really hard to say... well this is finished.
So you're saying without DLC (ie further improvements to the game, but not required elements) that critics will review Witcher 3 poorly?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Witcher 3 reviews will be good enough without this magical complete before release DLC for the Witcher 3 sales to do well.
I dont think you really grasp how this works. The game is coming out February. A couple months (or weeks I'm unsure ) before release the game is sent out for production. When this happens nothing else can be added to the disk game.
There are two options here:
1.Pretend the internet doesn't exist. Wash your hands of the game call it done and move onto the next project.
2.Continue to work on content that would otherwise never see the light of day and release it as a download.
I'll take the second option.
So you're saying without DLC (ie further improvements to the game, but not required elements) that critics will review Witcher 3 poorly?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Witcher 3 reviews will be good enough without this magical complete before release DLC for the Witcher 3 sales to do well.
I dont think you really grasp how this works. The game is coming out February. A couple months (or weeks I'm unsure ) before release the game is sent out for production. When this happens nothing else can be added to the disk game.
There are two options here:
1.Pretend the internet doesn't exist. Wash your hands of the game call it done and move onto the next project.
2.Continue to work on content that would otherwise never see the light of day and release it as a download.
I'll take the second option.
Last edited:
What makes you think all these DLCs are planned events that they've decided and set on a timeline? It could just be a random idea they get and decide to make it a quest or additional equipment.
Why not add them before? Well for one they're busy working on the game and after that and polishing is done then it's bug hunting time until release and even after that. Adding more content at that time is also increasing the potential to increase the number of bugs and potential conflicts.
Videogames are developed with a strict timeline when it comes to these things and investors count on it. One they finish the game's content, they have to send it for certification which can take upto a month or more and also has to be given a month again for physical copies to be made. All that has to be fit within the timeframe of the release date. You can't add more content while your game is under the process of certification because if it passes, that code of the game is exactly what you certified if you make even a minor change to the code it will need to be certified again, hence any new bugfixes you discover or new content you want to include they need to be patched later.
You can't delay the game for flimsy reasons, the investors especially won't take it well. Any deals you've had with distribution companies will also be strained.
Why not add them before? Well for one they're busy working on the game and after that and polishing is done then it's bug hunting time until release and even after that. Adding more content at that time is also increasing the potential to increase the number of bugs and potential conflicts.
Videogames are developed with a strict timeline when it comes to these things and investors count on it. One they finish the game's content, they have to send it for certification which can take upto a month or more and also has to be given a month again for physical copies to be made. All that has to be fit within the timeframe of the release date. You can't add more content while your game is under the process of certification because if it passes, that code of the game is exactly what you certified if you make even a minor change to the code it will need to be certified again, hence any new bugfixes you discover or new content you want to include they need to be patched later.
You can't delay the game for flimsy reasons, the investors especially won't take it well. Any deals you've had with distribution companies will also be strained.
Back in the 1990's and early 2000's PC versions of video games got DLC's added for free in patches months after the video games have been released for sale and only got expansion packs released for sale.
I remember the expansion packs back in 1998 and 1999 for Unreal and Unreal Tournament and in 2003 the free maps that got added in patches for Call of Duty. I remember the Tiger Town map or whatever the name of the map was for Call of Duty, then in 2004 Call of Duty: United Offensive released for sale which is a expansion pack for Call of Duty.
Video game developers cannot finish all of the content in time when the video game gets released for sale. If they did then it would mean to keep on pushing the release day for when the video game gets released for sale further, like lets say CD Projekt RED wants to have a lot of DLC included in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt before it gets released for sale on February 24th, 2015 and that DLC takes another 2 months to develop, etc then The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt would end up getting released for sale on April 2015 or May 2015, etc.
I remember the expansion packs back in 1998 and 1999 for Unreal and Unreal Tournament and in 2003 the free maps that got added in patches for Call of Duty. I remember the Tiger Town map or whatever the name of the map was for Call of Duty, then in 2004 Call of Duty: United Offensive released for sale which is a expansion pack for Call of Duty.
Video game developers cannot finish all of the content in time when the video game gets released for sale. If they did then it would mean to keep on pushing the release day for when the video game gets released for sale further, like lets say CD Projekt RED wants to have a lot of DLC included in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt before it gets released for sale on February 24th, 2015 and that DLC takes another 2 months to develop, etc then The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt would end up getting released for sale on April 2015 or May 2015, etc.
In a way I get where you're coming from: you want to experience the whole deal on your first playthrough because everything's still new.. But generally their DLCs have been pretty isolated from the main story (the exception to this being the chapter 3 DLC quests I guess) so I don't really mind. It's unrealistic to expect them to delay the game for these things especially since, as pointed out by the others, these ideas might pop up after the game's gone gold or generally too late in the development cycle.
In a day and age where some DLCs are on the game disk and can only be unlocked through pre-orders/season passes/exclusives/paying more (Saints Row 3 for example) or are even purposefully cut out (From Ashes from ME3) it's makes me respect CDPR way more for how they handle things. 9 out of 10 times DLCs offer so little content for what you'd pay for them, I miss those times when a company would release a big expansion for their game that works as a big interconnected block of content instead of small DLCs completely unrelated to eachother.
In a day and age where some DLCs are on the game disk and can only be unlocked through pre-orders/season passes/exclusives/paying more (Saints Row 3 for example) or are even purposefully cut out (From Ashes from ME3) it's makes me respect CDPR way more for how they handle things. 9 out of 10 times DLCs offer so little content for what you'd pay for them, I miss those times when a company would release a big expansion for their game that works as a big interconnected block of content instead of small DLCs completely unrelated to eachother.
CD Projekt should just do the same they did with Witcher 1 & 2 : Release the game, continue updating it, add few free quest's and after while re-release it as optimized enhanced edition with some additional stuff, provide enhancements as free patch to owners of original W. No paid DLC's, platform exclusive crap policies ala EA and Ubisoft. Players will be happy and will buy next game eagerly so CD projekt too will be happy :cheers:
Witcher 3 needs after it's release at least one big good,old,meaty expansion with new land to visit (ship for Zerikannia is awaiting Geralt for example in Novigrad's port ready to take him to exotic world full of exotic people,monsters,flora and fauna) which will be paid of course unlike small quests and items which will be added as well along with gameplay improvements just like in witcher 2.
Last edited:
When video games starting getting into the DLC content and special content for single systems I started getting out of it. Make a great game and I'll buy it, if you need to fix things make a patch, if you feel you need to tell more of the story, make an expansion then I'll buy that.
ACII is what started it or me, they had section of Florence blocked off because they were going to later sell the "Bonfire of the Vanities" DLC. It was already part of the game (city portion anyway), they're just getting greedier. That's fine, I'll pay more, but don't cut stuff out to turn around and try and sell it to be a week after release. You turds (not CDPR) already made it.
ACII is what started it or me, they had section of Florence blocked off because they were going to later sell the "Bonfire of the Vanities" DLC. It was already part of the game (city portion anyway), they're just getting greedier. That's fine, I'll pay more, but don't cut stuff out to turn around and try and sell it to be a week after release. You turds (not CDPR) already made it.
Last edited:
Witcher 3's post release support (discussion and wishes for free DLCs and paid expansions)
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/09/30/the-witcher-3-developer-talks-dlc-and-drm
In this article on IGN folks from CD Projekt briefly touched the subject of post release support of Witcher 3.IGN went well IGNorant as usual and said that only because company won't do paid DLC that it means there won't be any DLC or in other words content addition to Witcher 3 post release.
Anyway.one thing got my attention.They said that they can't wait to focus more on Cyberpunk 2077 once Witcher 3 is done which makes me wonder:
Will there be any free small DLCs for Witcher 3 after it's release like Witcher 2 had (quests,items,new areas etc.) and will there be good old expansion with new landmass (like for example ship takes Geralt to Zerrikania) with new quests,areas,monsters,features etc. ?
In short if it's not too early to ask you (and since IGN did why shouldn't we): What are your post release plans for Witcher 3 and do you plan paid expansion down the line,for example 7-8 months after release?
After all it's Geralt's last game and he kinda deserves it...
Oh why not do a poll too...it can't hurt. :smiling:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/09/30/the-witcher-3-developer-talks-dlc-and-drm
In this article on IGN folks from CD Projekt briefly touched the subject of post release support of Witcher 3.IGN went well IGNorant as usual and said that only because company won't do paid DLC that it means there won't be any DLC or in other words content addition to Witcher 3 post release.
Anyway.one thing got my attention.They said that they can't wait to focus more on Cyberpunk 2077 once Witcher 3 is done which makes me wonder:
Will there be any free small DLCs for Witcher 3 after it's release like Witcher 2 had (quests,items,new areas etc.) and will there be good old expansion with new landmass (like for example ship takes Geralt to Zerrikania) with new quests,areas,monsters,features etc. ?
In short if it's not too early to ask you (and since IGN did why shouldn't we): What are your post release plans for Witcher 3 and do you plan paid expansion down the line,for example 7-8 months after release?
After all it's Geralt's last game and he kinda deserves it...
Oh why not do a poll too...it can't hurt. :smiling:
That's really great to hear.It would be even better if you could for example provide me with a link of them saying that or..................if you know reds could show up and do it by themselves. :
So according to you putting the extra quest line or a item set in before launch instead of releasing it later for free will convince more people to buy it? And if you wan't the best experience the first time, don't buy the witcher 3 till the enhance edition is released or wait 6 months till most of the bugs are out. (and still receive the enhanced edition for free.)
And like others have already said. What if they come up with quests after the launch? I'm sorry but you have some really weak points....
