It actually does because at least some of the DLC stuff is just about simple graphical updates like new clothes or hair. You don't really think that 100% of the Witcher staff is fixing bugs until the very last second? I don't think so. Especially the art people are not really deeply involved in the late development bugfixing and optimization processs, at least not in my experience. But anyway, even if they were I don't demand the DLC being included in the game. I don't support the whole DLC strategy in general.
That's not what I've meant. I meant the general decision to release DLC in the way they do. Especially compared to traditional "consumer-friendly" solutions like full expansion packs or their very own Enhanced Edition strategy. What's the purpose of releasing for example new clothes for Yennefer some weeks after release? At that point most fans will proably have already played the game through and skipped to something else. And even then that's hardly a reason to return to the game. So it doesn't really enchance the quality of the game for the normal player but it does indeed prevent people from selling their copy (I mean the console crowd here with retail games) because they think they could miss out on something. That's actually why DLC was invented in the first place, to undermine the used games market. It's just beyond me how CDPR can be so fundamentally opposed to DRM, calling it the worst thing in gaming, while they gladly support such business practices like DLC that are - from a consumer point of view - clearly worse than e.g. a full expansion. I mean think for yourself: what's better for the gamer? A new piece of DLC released every two weeks after release and maybe a new little mission release every few weeks or a full expansion that offers all the cosmetic stuff and a full storyline/plot with more than just a package of simple, unconnected missions?
Or if there won't be any expansion at all I'd rather have the people working on a completely new game or contributing to Cyberpunk than having them working on pointless cosmetic DLCs and missions only a small fractions of the consumers will ever play (that's sadly the truth...).
There was a game design philosophy back in the days which told people to release full, meaningful, consistent games and then go on to the next project, be it an expansion or a completely new game. What's really the point in announcing and releasing this 16 small DLC packs if not just the message that their DLC is free and Ubisoft's not? It sounds good in the first moment - no question about that - but the effect and benefit for the player is rather small in the end and it also comes with quite some opportunity costs...
So out of the three possible workload strategies "full expansion pack", "16 DLC packs" and "working on another game/project" the DLC strategy is imo clearly the worst for the gamer/consumer and I don't think that is something to cherish about...
The people necessary to implement the DLC contents really depends on what are they trying to do, a new sword sure, but a new quest is different. Unfortunately I dont know what are the other 12 DLC's about to get an idea. Also I think its too much of a wild speculation that they dont use the artist in the later stages of development for example, I mean sure its totally possible, but many times all devs are making little fixes and changes to their work if they have the time, its all interconnected, the time might be mainly for technical improvements, but whole thing probably gets tweaked til the end.
I agree DLC is not a very positive thing thats worth it, but I wasnt discussing that, I was talking about once the DLC already exists and is planned, what should they do with it. I'd prefer a big expansion or just patches and balancing, or send devs to work on another game. Also, you can have expansion packs but released piece by piece, but thats beyond the point.
Now the DLC's reason to exist probably is to look as a good company that gives you free stuff, im not arguing that, but there are other things included, its also the cheapest and laziest way of adding content to the game for example. It's better than not adding anything, but doesnt cost as much as an expansion. I dont mind that if they are not willing to invest in a full expansion pack, I dont care much about it either but it is what it is.
I didnt know DLC was invented for the purpose you mention, it sounds strange since most DLCs are paid, and everything that costs money will likely be cheaper later, so why keep the game instead of selling it?, and why not buy a used game later when its cheaper and its DLCs are cheaper, or the GOTY edition is available?. If the DLCs were free, then its a tiny bit more understandable, even though like you said for TW3, they are hardly a reson to return to the game, or keep it.
