Hearts of Stone & Blood and Wine - two massive expansions for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

[die-yng]

Welcome to the forums.



Why?
How is the proposition that all additional content irrespective of size must be offered for free reasonable in any way? Just try to apply that model to any other industry and watch as it collapses shortly after.



This is what's known as a Slippery Slope Fallacy .



True, possibly, but that is not a substantive concern. You express doubts about the timing of the announcement, which while relevant, amount to a lesser formal preoccupation. Timing does not alter the nature of what is being offered. As far as I'm concerned the value proposition is the core of this matter and why I find remarks like this



completely unhelpful (mind you, I have used a similar line of reasoning in the past, when I felt it was appropriate in conjunction with other lengthy points). That's the issue worth delving into. Doesn't mean I find REDs dishonest. Doesn't even mean I'm suspicious of their intentions further down the line. I don't and I'm not. What a serene consideration of the few known facts leads to, however, is the mildly disappointing conclusion that this pass offers less value for money than TW3 does. Sure, the conclusion is provisional. If, for example, REDs later promise revamped or expanded gameplay mechanics which will benefit TW3 as well, that certainly would tip the scales in favour of this pass, which, in all probability, I will be getting after the two packs premier. From what I can tell, there just is no reason to pre-order, besides charitable support to the REDs, and that in and of itself compounds the somewhat underwhelming resonance of the otherwise pretty good offer.

Thanks, but I'm not really new, I just don't seem to be able to log-in with my old account.

As for paid DLC. most DLCs are either stuff you would have gotten for free or with mods in the past, aka skins, game modes or weapons/armour packs.
Or they are sort of micro expansions, except that they are much, much more expensive than regular expansions.
You usually pay around 10 bucks now for 2-3 hours of gameplay, which might be okay compared to a lot of new games that offer only a 8-12 hour playthrough, but not compared to any game that has a length between 25-50 hours.

So DLC's are either stuff that you unlocked or got anyway with the main game or they are over-priced and often lazy-assed done missions you would have gotten for free as well or as full-blown expansions aka DA: Awakenings or NWN II Mask.

As for your slippery slope fallacy, that is completely your interpretation.
Give me one example of a company that has started to demand money for DLCs that has not started to do the things I mentioned above, and even that would only be the exception to the rule.

I never said this is what will happen with CDPR, merely that I fear it might and that others have started out with similar reasonable seeming stuff and are now charging you extra for every little thing.
I've always used CD Project Red as a shining example for a developer that is not doing anything of the sort and I just hope it stays that way.

---------- Updated at 06:55 PM ----------

Can we please stop with all of the complaining? It's getting ridiculous and is over such a trivial matter. Remember we are getting 16 DLCs for FREE by no means does CDPR have to give us those free of charge. They've put in years of hard work and delayed the game not once but twice to assure us that we get the best game possible. I see absolutely no reason for complaining, none whatsoever. They haven't lied to anybody about anything it's been stated by CDPR "DLC is the smaller bits and pieces, and we will never charge for those things. However, if we do a big adventure say 15 to 20 hours long, a very high value story extension to the game then we will probably charge for that."

It's fine that you personally don't see a reason for complaining, that doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit with your opinion, if they see a reason for concern or complaints.
There is this gut-reaction by fans of a specific developer/publisher to automatically defend every action and deny the value of any criticism and that is something that I find incredibly annoying.
If a developer is doing good work and presenting a great product at a fair price, they have no need of this sort of defence, if not then the criticism is valid anyway so the instant defence mode is even more ridiculous.

Let people voice their concerns, state your opinion that you don't agree, but please allow people who think otherwise to do just that.

With that being said, I do absolutely agree with you that CDPR has not lied to us nor is it wrong to charge money for 30+ additional hours of game play, especially if they continue their tradition of additional free content.
While concern and criticism should be encouraged, it should also be reasonable and not over the top hysteria.

 

[GuyNwah]

Yes, indeed. But aren't those usually part of the publishing companies? They usually provide funds to the studio. Unless we are talking about other kind of investors. CDPR have some investing firms as part of their shareholders by the way.

And that short term "follow the greed' attitude is a plague, not just in gaming, but in many other industries, which multiplies mediocrity and slows down technology progress.

Not always. In the publisher-funded game model, you're right. But there's any number of variations on that model. You can have venture capital controlling gaming houses and publishers, like the situation with Elevation Partners, EA, and Bioware, where Riccitello's Elevation Partners self-dealt themselves into control of EA, used EA's money to buy Bioware, took the lion's share of the proceeds as their fee, and left the combined company so indebted they were forced to deliver mainstream games as rapidly as possible in order to keep the bankers at bay.

The underlying problem is really that predictable short-term profit is the means of satisfying the controlling investors and maintaining the business as a going concern. The need to make predictable sales this quarter and this year, in excess of excessive debt and speculative expectations, creates the situation where the independent studio model is most likely to fail.

 

[Agent_Bleu]

That's a lot of opinion and "big words" for ~ $20.00. You are over analyzing, way over analyzing, a $20.00 purchase.

As for my general comment, you misread it. I am not saying people should not post of that threads should be closed. I am asking people to stop whining like kids. Present a point in a coherent manner, like an adult. And it wasn't directed to you, either. I just didn't think a separate post was needed, so that is what I labeled it "as a general comment".

Not going to comment on your stylistic considerations.

I am however going to call utter baloney on that mythical $20.00 threshold. Either these packs offer good value for money or they don't (they do). Either they stand as a value proposition comparable to the main game or they don't (they don't, apparently, not quite). The rationale, the general principle that had so many gamers protesting The Order 1886's shortness and its steep price tag does not collapse simply because what's being charged here falls under sixty bucks or 5,4 or 3 digits.

As a general comment, I don't think any reasonable person harbours illusions regarding this matter. I certainly didn't think that by posting 2 or 3 remarks on the official forums their management would convene impromptu and announce a price drop or a feature upgrade shortly after. That's not how business works and not my motivation either, which is to discuss these matters rationally. To suggest that any post questioning the price point in one way or another betrays such an unrealistic expectation seems absurd to me.

Nor am I going to comment on the personal relevance of $20.00, except to point out to you the obvious fact that it just might vary greatly across the Globe.

 

[Sardukhar]

As for your slippery slope fallacy, that is completely your interpretation.
Give me one example of a company that has started to demand money for DLCs that has not started to do the things I mentioned above, and even that would only be the exception to the rule.

Saying that because an entity does thing A means it will go on to do thing B, without providing a demonstrable, constant reason for the process of A to B, is that fallacy. You haven't provided a majority list of software companies that follow your process, which would be evidence of a kind. You've suggested others prove you wrong, which is indicative of a weak argument. You've even suggested that if the reader find such an example, it would be invalid.

As for companies charging for additional content post-launch, expansions of varying sizes have been a part of software marketing for decades. Because a company charges for one kind of content is not an inevitable "slide" towards charging for all kinds of additional content, forever.

Speaking as someone who runs an actual business, I do say that the idea of giving away product for free only ever makes sense as a loss leader and marketing ploy to encourage consumers to spend money on you.

Of course, I also find the gaming community hilariously self-satisfied while they enjoy content that is five times as lengthy for the same price as more standard content. It's akin to buying a new RV for the same price as a new minivan.

If you want more, you pay more. That's business.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

The underlying problem is really that predictable short-term profit is the means of satisfying the controlling investors and maintaining the business as a going concern. The need to make predictable sales this quarter and this year, in excess of excessive debt and speculative expectations, creates the situation where the independent studio model is most likely to fail.

It creates a situation when they are used to such model, and unless they are resolute to break free from it, they'll continue doing the same. It doesn't mean independent model is likely to fail. There are many studios already that operate independently. It's less established yet, but it already works for some.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

More Geralt is always better than less Geralt. I don't really get what problem people see here. It is not like this content is cut out from the main game and sold as expansions on day 1. Other than that, anything that expands the game is welcome. Also call it anything you want, but season/expansion pass is simply a way to save money. Nobody is tearing Telltale a new one for offering them for every single one of their games. I am very glad that CDPR will be supporting TW3 and will be providing new content for quite some time, despite other games they may be working on.

 

[GuyNwah]

It creates a situation when they are used to such model, and unless they are resolute to break free from it, they'll continue doing the same. It doesn't mean independent model is likely to fail. There are many studios already that operate independently. It's less established yet, but it already works for some.

I think most businessmen are smarter and more creative than that. There are always counterexamples like Dilbert's PHB, but it's usually the case that they really do not like the short-term profit model and want to do something better, but they cannot because the institution that funded them also controls the board of directors.

Your will to follow or abandon a business model is absolutely constrained by the need to run your business in a manner that satisfies the directors, some of whom are under no obligation to agree with your purpose or vision. Stated cynically, it is simply the Golden Rule in action: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Stated cynically, it is simply the Golden Rule in action: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

Yes, that's why you are more likely to find those who start studios from scratch going that route (i.e. independent development), rather than old ones suddenly breaking free from bad publishers' / bad investors' grip. Luckily more and more of such studios appear. Which apparently indicates that it's doable.

 

[Scryar]

I was thinking why they announced it now and not in a few month after release. I think for the same reason why we will get the free dlc for a month after release. CD Project Red want's the players to keep the game and not resell it after they finished the story. Now everybody knows there will be more content in October and early 2016 and to play this new content they have to keep the game. Makes imo sense to announce the dlc now and not in a few months.

 

[die-yng]

I was thinking why they announced it now and not in a few month after release. I think for the same reason why we will get the free dlc for a month after release. CD Project Red want's the players to keep the game and not resell it after they finished the story. Now everybody knows there will be more content in October and early 2016 and to play this new content they have to keep the game. Makes imo sense to announce the dlc now and not in a few months.

Well, they don't have to fear that with me. I plan on playing this game for years to come.:thumbup:

---------- Updated at 09:27 PM ----------

Saying that because an entity does thing A means it will go on to do thing B, without providing a demonstrable, constant reason for the process of A to B, is that fallacy. You haven't provided a majority list of software companies that follow your process, which would be evidence of a kind. You've suggested others prove you wrong, which is indicative of a weak argument. You've even suggested that if the reader find such an example, it would be invalid.

As for companies charging for additional content post-launch, expansions of varying sizes have been a part of software marketing for decades. Because a company charges for one kind of content is not an inevitable "slide" towards charging for all kinds of additional content, forever.

Speaking as someone who runs an actual business, I do say that the idea of giving away product for free only ever makes sense as a loss leader and marketing ploy to encourage consumers to spend money on you.

Of course, I also find the gaming community hilariously self-satisfied while they enjoy content that is five times as lengthy for the same price as more standard content. It's akin to buying a new RV for the same price as a new minivan.

If you want more, you pay more. That's business.

That finding only one example of a policy/ method/ philosophy isn't proof that it is a rule is no weak argument, it's simple empirical thinking.
Any scientist only able to achieve a result to prove his theory once and still claim it was proven would be the laughingstock of the science community.
The same goes for asking for examples to the contrary, no sign of a weak argument, only the implication that it is the other side who has to produce proof, since your side already has it and you probably know that and are just trying to score a point.

You want a list? Here are the eight major publishers, they all do it:
Ubisoft
Bandai Namco Games
Nintendo
Sony Computer Entertainment
Square Enix
Activision /Blizzard
Electronic Arts
States Microsoft

Most of the mid-sized publishers do it as well.

And to deny the slide towards micro-transactions and paid dlc does seem pretty ridiculous given the proof you can see with all the MMOs, MMORPGs, the browser games and the major game launches of the last few years.
How someone can seriously deny that is beyond me. Whether you criticize or approve it, or are indifferent to it, you can't deny that it is the way the industry is going.

I also specifically addressed that I have no problem paying for expansions to games, which you somehow ignored in your condescending reply. I can even live with shorter DLCs if the entertainment value they offer is a good deal for the money it costs. Nothing I wrote or meant does in any way say that I think gaming companies shouldn't charge for their products, I only wish more would do so in a fair and reasonable manner, instead of just trying to milk their customer base.
WHich is a bit off-topic, I guess; since CDPR hasn't done anything of that sort so far.

I'm also not quite sure what the part about running a business means, if you don't even seem to get that keeping your customer satisfied is part of it. Which is something I, as someone working in sales, know well.
I think your customers would be pretty angry and dissatisfied if you suddenly started selling only parts of a product you used to sell as a whole and start charging additionally for the parts you left out, because this is what I'm talking about when I criticize paid for DLC and especially first-day DLC. Stuff that used to be part of the product initially and is now being treated as a separate product.

 

[Sardukhar]

I think your customers would be pretty angry and dissatisfied if you suddenly started selling only parts of a product you used to sell as a whole and start charging additionally for the parts you left out, because this is what I'm talking about when I criticize paid for DLC and especially first-day DLC. Stuff that used to be part of the product initially and is now being treated as a separate product.

Well, here's a pretty simple truth about business: the customer is rarely satisfied for very long. If at all. So that whole "keeping customers satisfied" is a game where the goal posts are always moving. If you can make them think they are satisfied and increase profits, job done.

You have to decide if the price point for what you pay is acceptable for what you get. Obviously Ubisoft and EA sales know their jobs and consider microtransactions and pay-for DLC a solid technique.

As for selling only parts of a product, tiered products are one of the ways you encourage customers to think they obtained more for their money than the next guy. It's a very good marketing idea.

In my business, like most businesses that involve heavy machines, we've long since tiered products. Whereas twenty years ago you might have a job for a certain price rnge, now we charge you extra for all sorts of sundries. Fuel costs and insurance costs have changed how we do things massively. Not to mention increased competition.

My customers do, in fact, understand. The vast majority of them are business owners and solid citizens - they understand things have changed and that I'm in business to make money.

Googling a couple of the names on your list and Ubisoft offered free DLC for ACu just this last January: http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/en-us/news/detail.aspx?c=tcm:152-190382-16&ct=tcm:148-76770-32

Square Enix and Google tell me they gave away DLC for Just Cause 2 in 2010, http://ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3/just-cause-2/1100970p1.html

Lastly, it was a weak argument because this isn't about empirical thinking or science - it's very subjective. You think the industry is trending this way overall and it's bad. I don't know if the industry is trending this way and even if it is, I'd describe it more as inevitable than unfortunate.

Just wait until we start paying more for games with greater content...these RPGs we love so much are going to be priceeeyyy.

 

[Senteria]

Wow 46 pages already. Still I want to add my contribution to it. When I first saw it I got a slight uneasy feeling. I mean I preordered the game and then it seems that there will be more added to the game, but I will have to pay half of the money extra for 15% more content. That made me feel a bit sad. Especially considering CDPR gave out new content for their games for free in the past.

Though we have to put things in perspective. This new extra content was never promised to us from the start. The content seems pretty awesome and I'd love to play it some day. I don't know why there are so many pages written here, probably full of rage, but I don't think it's justified.

Basically it's like this: You will get your full game experience. However CDPR is not fully done with the witcher franchise yet and will continue to support it by working the coming months to make new content for the witcher 3. I applaud that. We were never entitled to this content anyway. YET I can still understand people not liking this idea because they want everything in a game and not have to buy extra pieces of the game later. They want a complete experience and in order to get the complete experience they have to fork 25 euro over. I think that's a very hefty price to pay. I can buy four 5.99 games on GOG for that. Or I could buy two 9.99 games. Especially indie games are cheap. Still it IS 30 hours of content. Most other genres would be considered very long in terms of gameplay if they even reached 30 hours. So there is two ways to look at this.

For those that feel agitated, please look at things in perspective alright? You're not getting less for your money.

So what about me? I will wait probably until september when a lot more details about this DLC will be anounced and then I'll probably pick it up. As a fan I definately want to see Toussaint.

Well there you have my input.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

YET I can still understand people not liking this idea because they want everything in a game and not have to buy extra pieces of the game later. They want a complete experience and in order to get the complete experience they have to fork 25 euro over.

This is something I don't get. Are some people now completely against ANY expansion packs? As I remember nobody was badmouthing Bethesda for making Shivering Islands. Is it really in any way better not to have any new content at all at later time? It's a bit of mind-boggling reasoning. So new content a year later (it does not even exist now) will make their experience NOW less complete, but if there is no extra content later, their experience NOW will be complete. That's a pretty weird case of backward causation. Well, may be they get lucky, a meteor will drop on Poland, we won't have any new expansions, and they will be able to enjoy their totally complete experience. But I sure as hell want my Toussaint.

 

[Yurtex]

Well, may be they get lucky, a meteor will drop on Poland, we won't have any new expansions, and they will be able to enjoy their totally complete experience. But I sure as hell want my Toussaint.

Noo no no.. pls ... not even with sarcasm :huh:

My only concern is that it costs the same as the game(with a 20% discount) here, 950 RUR for the game and 999 for the expansion. :hmm:

Any way for those who hate dlc's and expansions, think of it as an new game

 

[Senteria]

This is something I don't get. Are some people now completely against ANY expansion packs? As I remember nobody was badmouthing Bethesda for making Shivering Islands. Is it really in any way better not to have any new content at all at later time? It's a bit of mind-boggling reasoning. So new content a year later (it does not even exist now) will make their experience NOW less complete, but if there is no extra content later, their experience NOW will be complete. That's a pretty weird case of backward causation. Well, may be they get lucky, a meteor will drop on Poland, we won't have any new expansions, and they will be able to enjoy their totally complete experience. But I sure as hell want my Toussaint.

Yep it's weird reasoning. But a year down the line, the game will be incomplete when the expansions are out. Because by then if you don't get the existing expansions, you don't own every witcher 3 content.
I don't know why people are against expansion packs.

 

[Garrison72]

Holy crap I was not expecting this. O_O

I was sure an expansion was a pipe dream at this point. Given the quality of CDPR's post release content in the past, I'm willing to back them and preorder. Some of the best quests were in the Enhanced Edition, and I spent an embarrassing number of hours in Arena. The only downside is it seems Cyberpunk is getting further sidelined by the insane amount of Witcher stuff coming.

 

[Senteria]

Holy crap I was not expecting this. O_O

I was sure an expansion was a pipe dream at this point. Given the quality of CDPR's post release content in the past, I'm willing to back them and preorder. Some of the best quests were in the Enhanced Edition, and I spent an embarrassing number of hours in Arena. The only downside is it seems Cyberpunk is getting further sidelined by the insane amount of Witcher stuff coming.

Can't really blame them either since they have a big blockbuster game in their hands.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

“With the development of Wild Hunt coming to an end, the team has embarked upon the creation of two new really big adventures set in The Witcher universe,” says Marcin Iwiński, CD PROJEKT RED co-founder. “We remember the time when add-on disks truly expanded games by delivering meaningful content. As gamers, we’d like to bring that back. We’ve said in the past that if we ever decide to release paid content, it will be vast in size and represent real value for the money. Both our expansions offer more hours of gameplay than quite a few standalone games out there.”

I can get behind this plan, 'cos it's a good one, and if it's successful perhaps the experience will embolden the REDs towards achieving the goal of the above mentioned retrograde step, perhaps in TW3's 2nd year of release, or at least for CP2077, and a classic style Expansion (/w fully contained story & minimal mechanic improvements / alterations / additions) will be ours again, rather than the piecemeal fare supplied by erratic dlc.

But experimenting with a product somewhere in between is a sound strategy. Both addons sound great, its also good to know TW3 really will have some decent boosts to its longevity while we wait for mods, and all things considered I have zero doubts they won't be "vanilla-cut" material but rather post-gold workload, sure even the earlier one being shorter & utilising existing assets and the later one longer & requiring new stuff & a year to make clearly indicates our 100-200 vanilla hours are intact..

Blood and Wine, a 20-hour-plus tale that will introduce the all-new in-game region of Toussaint, will take Geralt to a land untainted by war, where an atmosphere of carefree indulgence and knightly ritual masks an ancient, bloody secret.

:hatsoff:

“While we’re offering the Expansion Pass now, we want to make one thing clear: don’t buy it if you have any doubts. Wait for reviews or play The Witcher and see if you like it first. As always, it’s your call,” Iwiński concludes.

Good advice, plainly offered, and well taken

 

[EliHarel]

I'm really curious to know what mechanical upgrades the expansions will offer and specifically about combat. Combat can always be improved. I don't expect them to make major differences, but I imagine there are some tweaks they wanted to do but decided not to because of the time limitation. The expansion packs can be a good way to insert them. And I imagine they'll be integrated into the game and blend their improvements into it, and not act as a separate sections like, say Brood Wars or Mask of the Betrayer were, where the improvements were closed into the campaigns of only the expansion packs.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

To my mind the best Expansions did offer a revitalised mechanic of their base game, just enough to add that little extra game-discovery incentive while playing, but nowhere near so much as to constitute a "new game". The REDs could even leverage their strengths and produce a relatively low-action high-narrative detective-noir Raymond Maarloeve-esque complicated C&C whodunnit. Or just give us Jaskiers strings to play with.