In this case, it would be a matter of choice, then.You don't know the difference between announcing a different pre-order product from the get go versus announcing a Collector's Edition for all platforms at the same time and then giving one of them extras down the road without any penalty?
Huh? They announced them all at the same time and they all went on sale (pre-order) at the same time, for the same price.In this case, it would be a matter of choice, then.
No, from my point of view it's not. People who bought the game on GOG had no way of getting the statue, medallion, etc. Therefore I find it normal that cdpr includes other things to suit a digital version.No, it's identical. Both are extras that are not provided to the consumer through any other deal.
The difference, as I see it, is that one exclusive deal was through GOG, and the other is through Microsoft. And some find it acceptable to heap scorn on Microsoft, or to spread FUD about Microsoft doing damage to gaming. And some others find it a convenient bandwagon to jump on.
Excitabat enim fluctus in simpulo ut dicitur Gratidius. [Cicero]
The "difference" is of no interest to anyone except those who see it as a pretext to make trouble.You don't know the difference between announcing a different pre-order product from the get go versus announcing a Collector's Edition for all platforms at the same time and then giving one of them extras down the road without any penalty?
Every retail exclusive is given by the dev in order to promote sales, This is a standard marketing method. this system is used everywhere in the market from gaming to medicine.But your wrong. the gog extras was just like a retail exclusive not a platform exclusive, that's the difference.
That is one very bold statement to make. You basically just called anyone who finds this whole ordeal unfair, troublemakers.The "difference" is of no interest to anyone except those who see it as a pretext to make trouble.
A promotion is a promotion. And it is within the legitimate conduct of any business to offer promotions in some channels and not in others, and the sole and completely sufficient reason for doing so is that you as a business must promote your product by the means available to you in any channel that matters to you.
So long as CDPR does not put actual game content on one platform and not others, for reasons other than platform capability, there is no difference between one promotion and another.
when did they almost go bankrupt? if it was anytime recently then you i can understand that, but this deal with Microsoft happened just recently and in doing so lost their values.Every retail exclusive is given by the dev in order to promote sales, This is a standard marketing method. this system is used everywhere in the market from gaming to medicine.
Let me be frank here, this deal with microsift didn't made me lose trust toward CD projekt red, on the contrary it made me gain a lot of trust and respect for them. let me explain why, SE the development of Tomb Raider made raise if the tomb raider as an exclusive XBOX one game, the game will be released some time in the future tom PS4 and PC, no one know when, they had financial problems ( felt that selling 6 mil copies of the TR reboot is not sufficient). On the other hand CD project red almost went bankrupt twice trying to market the witcher games but they kept their values, and all they gave microsoft for their assistance was 2 decs of cards and a cloth map. The game will be released at the same time for all platforms and will have the same content on all platforms, no day one DLC and no drm.
please explain to me how could they form a better deal that will hinder the player less. no one lose anything promised. Yes the CE xbox players will receive items paid by microsoft, i am happy for them and hope they will enjoy it.
Choice, as in lack of choice, as in most of the CE are already sold out, that's what I said, yes. You said the backlash wasn't about choice, it is for many, it's about choice that they couldn't even make.Huh? They announced them all at the same time and they all went on sale (pre-order) at the same time, for the same price.
There was nothing back then hinting that CDPR would go and give one of the Collector's Editions additional content, what choice?
Oh no.. its not that hard. Noone is denying xboxes are unpopular, and need promotions to generate more sales. Same with any other unpopular product.No, we have the same opinion. The situations are identical. Both are "extras" provided to the customers of one platform only. The difference is the reaction. In the GOG case, nobody said it contradicted the Eurogamer article, nobody complained about values and trust.
@Socceman88 - The GOG deal was platform-exclusive, PC-only.
But of course, it wasn't Xbox. Because I think that's what makes this different, not some difference in interpretation of the Eurogamer article.
that's how exclusive dlc gets started. CDPR didn't have to make the deal, if they turned it down Microsoft wouldn't have done anything because their not in a position to turn their backs on any game company. This deal was not about keeping a channel happy it was about money.In real marketing, not in some fantasy world where the game developer is selling to retail customers without any middlemen, every channel is individual, and every channel arrangement is different. There is no such thing as treating all channels the same, and yes, there are channels that are productive and yield sales, and there are channels that are not worth the effort to maintain a relationship with a partner. And if a channel partner who is worth making an effort to help wants help in the form of a promotion, and you can reach an agreement on what form that promotion should take, you fucking well do it.
There is no demanding that it be otherwise, because such demands are without meaning.
You do realise that Microsoft, in a way, greatly helped promoting the game in a few events? The Witcher 3 got under the big spotlight thanks to Microsoft and I don't think that after that, CDPR want to turn their back on them, as much as I hate this kind of deal, the same way I hate the principle behind exclusive content in general, given the situation, it made sense to agree to that deal.that's how exclusive dlc gets started. CDPR didn't have to make the deal, if they turned it down Microsoft wouldn't have done anything because their not in a position to turn their backs on any game company. This deal was not about keeping a channel happy it was about money.
In your opinion it`s about money . The problem here is you can`t offer proof that they were paid and I can`t offer proof that they weren`t so that leaves us back to square 1 .that's how exclusive dlc gets started. CDPR didn't have to make the deal, if they turned it down Microsoft wouldn't have done anything because their not in a position to turn their backs on any game company. This deal was not about keeping a channel happy it was about money.
Not sure how treating a channel with < 5M users is better in any way than channels with 10M+ and an entire PC market.In real marketing, not in some fantasy world where the game developer is selling to retail customers without any middlemen, every channel is individual, and every channel arrangement is different. There is no such thing as treating all channels the same, and yes, there are channels that are productive and yield sales, and there are channels that are not worth the effort to maintain a relationship with a partner. And if a channel partner who is worth making an effort to help wants help in the form of a promotion, and you can reach an agreement on what form that promotion should take, you fucking well do it.
There is no demanding that it be otherwise, because such demands are without meaning.
That's true but that's the most obvious reason. What else could it be? If it was to get on stage during a Microsoft presentation, then Microsoft would have said that they got an exclusive deal that other platforms didn't during the presentation. I doubt cdpr did it because they wanted to help Microsoft out.In your opinion it`s about money . The problem here is you can`t offer proof that they were paid and I can`t offer proof that they weren`t so that leaves us back to square 1 .