A chat about Single Player in Gwent.

+
So tell me: What should be the fate of single Player in Gwent? Incuded free of charge? Pay for it? Allow in game currency to pay? Other option to post below?
Nothing to worry about, but I like your thought on setting precedents. I disagree, though.

We're not talking about splitting multiplayer and single player in a traditional game sense. This is a card game. Single player content is not what the main draw should be. It's a nice addition, and it sounds REALLY good, and I'll be paying for it. If you aren't aware, DLC in the Witcher was very well priced for the content. That's a precedent that has ALREADY been set in favour of the consumer. I'm expecting this game to be full of value.

Just remember that the company that made the Witcher is making a card game, and we won't have everything immediately, and everyone's perception of value is different. That's a line of thinking that's kept me from being concerned. This is pre-beta, after all.
 
Free to play option makes the game accessible to all. This is critical for the success of a card game. Hearthstone has clearly shown that.

Now obviously, there should be ways to monetize the game, so that developers can get revenue.
Aside from buying packs, charging for the single player seems fine. Again depends on the value being provided.

Lack of value is lack of revenue, so the developers know well that they need to have solid product.
I'm fine with the charging for the single player, since mostly there will be enough value given by CD project Red. :)
 
I think there are some key differences between HS campaigns and Gwent campaigns that mean I'd be furious if HS didn't let you pay with in-game currency, but it's totally fine for Gwent:

- Hearthstone singleplayer awards you cards you can't gain otherwise. That means if you don't buy them you are at a large disadvantage, to the point where you won't be able to play most top-tier decks at all.
- Gwents campaigns will be 10 hours each, HS are maybe 1/2.

Essentially when you pay for a HS adventure you are mostly paying for a new set of multiplayer cards, but you also get some fun single-player missions to go along with it. For Gwent you are buying 10 hours of single-player content, which in my opinion is very similar to something like HoS.

Finally I just wanted to add that I really don't see why people are worried about this "setting a precedent". Why wouldn't you want future games to split multiplayer and singleplayer? If the next COD cost 30 dollars for the campaign and 30 for the full multiplayer then that's fine - more choice for the consumer is good.
 
1. Is there a confirmed response from the developer that each faction has 10 hours campaign? or all 4 factions get a total 10 hrs campaign?
I have seen articles on both options and I wish to clarify, is there an official response link/reply?


2. More choice is fine. I think some of us are worried that COD may cost, 30 for campaign and 50 for multiplayer. This is more about concern of paying lot more money as dictated by the developer. But hopefully we need to vote with our money and banish such unfair games. :)
 
Last edited:
Our PAX West panel touched upon a few of these points (toward the end of it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1-e9Sv7VME&feature=youtu.be

Thanks for the reply buddy.

I saw near the end of the video and I couldn't get any info on the duration of the campaigns. But one of the team did mention, single player is quite big and like game within a game. So I'm guessing we get around minimum of 10 hrs totally for all 4 campaigns but it might be more.

I think with the official release we will get the actual duration. :)
 
Is there any chance for Single Player to present not only "original stories", but also some important events in Witcher Universe ? For example: Assault on Stygga castle or Thanedd coup could look interesting converted to Gwent style :) Maybe even not as part of any Campaign, but some kind of one, short scenario/skirmish.
 
Top Bottom