Are you worried Witcher 3 was "Jump the shark" & future CDPR games will get worse?

+
NukeTheMoon;n9357921 said:
How about when she, herself always bitching and moaning about being sterilized, decided to put Ciri in magic school, to be sterilized, and lose all connection to anyone outside The Chapter like all sorceress do after 10 years plus of education? She tells Geralt to forget about Cir becoming a Witcher, she's going to become a sorceress. All Geralt asked her to do was stop her visions so the episodes wouldn't hurt her.
Possible plot hole, either Sapkowski's or CDPR's "talented" writers' in TW3, it's up to you.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
metalmaniac21;n9360201 said:
Possible plot hole, either Sapkowski's or CDPR's "talented" writers' in TW3, it's up to you.

It's not a plothole, sorceresses are not sterilized, they are becoming infertile through the prolonged usage of magic. I doesn't happen to all of them, if it did, Geralt would never be born. Tissaia de Vries was proponent of sterilization but it was never confirmed to be officially approved and put into action.
Ciri is a "Source", she's got the inborn affinity to magic, she doesn't draw power from the outside like sorceresses. The idea behind sending Ciri to Aretuza was teaching her to control her abilities after the Temple of Melitele was no longer safe. One of the reasons Aretuza was created in the first place was just that - helping "Sources" cultivate their powers. Not sterilizing them.
In short, it was never implied anything like that would happen to Ciri.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9358831 said:
You aren't entitled to having a studio develop on your platform. They choose the ones that makes the most financial sense.

CDPR would not need to develop the port themselves, a company like Feral Interactive would most likely have been interested in making the port, not least since TW3 is one of the more popular games requested from them, and it is still among the top 40 most played games on Steam. It would be extra revenue (even if a relatively small amount) for CDPR without having to do the actual work. Of course, they might be worried about bad PR because of a possibly low quality port (which happened initially with Assassins of Kings) or that it would increase their tech support costs, but that was the point, it is the conservative, risk averse attitude one would expect from the typical corporate AAA publisher like Bethesda, EA, Activision, etc., and not what people previously associated with CD Projekt.
 
ooodrin;n9361061 said:
It's not a plothole, sorceresses are not sterilized, they are becoming infertile through the prolonged usage of magic. I doesn't happen to all of them, if it did, Geralt would never be born. Tissaia de Vries was proponent of sterilization but it was never confirmed to be officially approved and put into action.
Ciri is a "Source", she's got the inborn affinity to magic, she doesn't draw power from the outside like sorceresses. The idea behind sending Ciri to Aretuza was teaching her to control her abilities after the Temple of Melitele was no longer safe. One of the reasons Aretuza was created in the first place was just that - helping "Sources" cultivate their powers. Not sterilizing them.
In short, it was never implied anything like that would happen to Ciri.

Where does it say in the books that using magic causes sterilization? No where.
You're substituting something that was heavily implied for something that was not.

Does it say definitely that The Chapter's tyrannical rule demands sterilization of all magic user?
No, but unlike magical use, the enforced sterilization is heavily implied, and fits in with the character of the Chapter. Why do you think the book brought Tissaia's dissertation up? It wasn't inconsequential.
Other people than sorcerers and sorceresses are able to use magic, but they are never told to be sterilized from it.

Mage students go in, and they leave with all previous family attachments removed, and all ability to create family removed.
When an institution takes young people, makes them loyal to itself, The Brotherhood, and cuts all family ties, that is not an accident. Particularly considering the Author is an old Polish guy.

It isn't an accident that Sorceresses and Sorcerers don't have children.
There was one*exception, key word, "exception".

How can you say Ciri didn't draw power from outside? Yennifer taught her to do so, explained the four elements, Ciri relinquished the ability only after utilizing fire in the desert, that was long after.

Aretuza was a place for Yennifer to dump Ciri.
She never intended to become a surrogate mother, she went there to stop the immediate problem.
I'm not saying that Yennifer wanted to sterilize Ciri, she just didn't care to consider if she was.

Yennifer knew who Ciri was, the princess of Cintra, and if security was the concern, that easily could have been taken care of by any friendly kingdom.
Hiding her under a kings protection without telling them who she was would have been easy enough.
Again, all Geralt asked her to do was stop her Visions, not put her in a boarding school for 10 years.
 
Last edited:
sv3672;n9362801 said:
, but that was the point, it is the conservative, risk averse attitude one would expect from the typical corporate AAA publisher like Bethesda, EA, Activision, etc., and not what people previously associated with CD Projekt.

Arguably a much better case than a port to Linux would be a port to a Nintendo platform. If they thought the benefit, whatever that may be, would outweigh the expense.
Probably the reason they don't do so would be the cost of the time to create a port that would meet Nintendo's quality standards.

It is not at all unreasonable to assume that CDPR are not interested in moving a DX11 title to Linux. They probably had enough problems porting it to PS4, and that was a controlled environment.
It is not at all unreasonable that a third party port might not appeal to them because it is CDPR's name on the box, their reputation that will be primarily effected, and whom will receive the complaints, not Feral Interactive.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/927750-playstation-3/68399673
They didn't even want to port TW2 to PS3 because of the difficulty it would be.

As for a risk averse attitude, there is no such thing as a business without a risk averse attitude, that's ignorant. Nobody sets out to set their money on fire.

What you really mean is, for some reason, you think that the niche of Linux users within the relative niche of PC users DESERVE a port. Because Linux.

I doubt that if Feral Interactive approached CDPR and offered to do it for a cut of the proceeds that CDPR would deny them.
Why don't you think Feral Interactive is interested in taking the risk on themselves, if it's such a good idea?
Because it's not, especially if there are quality assurance requirements, which CDPR would likely mandate.

Even though despite nearly being bankrupted and dissolved... after actually having been bankrupted and dissolved after the first attempt to create a Witcher game before TW1... CDPR is a bad company because they don't want to waste money in pointless port to a minority of PC users who chose an OS based on how much they like to give the middle finger to Microsoft.

Anyone that thinks that is the definitive marker of a company "falling as a developer" have serious issues making value judgments.
Most likely, an entitled and self-important attitude towards things within their sphere of interest leads them to make laughably foolish judgements while standing on the hill of their own self-righteousness.

When you have the artistic dreams and livelihoods of hundreds of people in your hands, you too would act the same way when it comes to throwing money away on a Linux port.

It was a mistake to ever declare support for Linux, but that is all it was, not the stone bringing down Goliath.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9370381 said:
Where does it say in the books that using magic causes sterilization? No where.

Not nessecerally because of magic, more likely due to the old age:
Most of us wizards lose the ability to procreate due to somatic changes and dysfunction of the pituitary gland. Some wizards — usually women — attune to magic while still maintaining efficiency of the gonads. They can conceive and give birth — and have the audacity to consider this happiness and a blessing. But I repeat: no one is born a wizard. And no one should be born one! Conscious of the gravity of what I write, I answer the question posed at the Congress in Cidaris. I ask most emphatically: each one of us must decide what she wants to be — a wizard or a mother.

NukeTheMoon;n9370381 said:
No, but unlike magical use, the enforced sterilization is heavily implied, and fits in with the character of the Chapter. Why do you think the book brought Tissaia's dissertation up? It wasn't inconsequential.

Don't forget that Tissaia is no longer the rector of Aretuza, Margarita is. And she actually mentiones her students as possible candidates for Tankred's wifes. And excludes them not because they're unable to give birth, but because they're still too green to be the Lodge's "agents".

NukeTheMoon;n9370381 said:
When an institution takes young people, makes them loyal to itself, The Brotherhood, and cuts all family ties, that is not an accident.

How many mages are actually loyal to the Brotherhood? Some are loyal to their kings, some only to themselves. There are healers like Marti Sodergren, scholars like Sheala de Tancarville and teachers like Margarita Laux-Antille. So the brainwashing is clearly not very successful. Plus Aretuza is stated to be apolitical (at least under Rita's leadership).
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
NukeTheMoon;n9370701 said:
Arguably a much better case than a port to Linux would be a port to a Nintendo platform. If they thought the benefit, whatever that may be, would outweigh the expense.
Probably the reason they don't do so would be the cost of the time to create a port that would meet Nintendo's quality standards.

It is not at all unreasonable to assume that CDPR are not interested in moving a DX11 title to Linux. They probably had enough problems porting it to PS4, and that was a controlled environment.
It is not at all unreasonable that a third party port might not appeal to them because it is CDPR's name on the box, their reputation that will be primarily effected, and whom will receive the complaints, not Feral Interactive.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/9277...ion-3/68399673
They didn't even want to port TW2 to PS3 because of the difficulty it would be.

As for a risk averse attitude, there is no such thing as a business without a risk averse attitude, that's ignorant. Nobody sets out to set their money on fire.

What you really mean is, for some reason, you think that the niche of Linux users within the relative niche of PC users DESERVE a port. Because Linux.

I doubt that if Feral Interactive approached CDPR and offered to do it for a cut of the proceeds that CDPR would deny them.
Why don't you think Feral Interactive is interested in taking the risk on themselves, if it's such a good idea?
Because it's not, especially if there are quality assurance requirements, which CDPR would likely mandate.

Even though despite nearly being bankrupted and dissolved... after actually having been bankrupted and dissolved after the first attempt to create a Witcher game before TW1... CDPR is a bad company because they don't want to waste money in pointless port to a minority of PC users who chose an OS based on how much they like to give the middle finger to Microsoft.

Anyone that thinks that is the definitive marker of a company "falling as a developer" have serious issues making value judgments.
Most likely, an entitled and self-important attitude towards things within their sphere of interest leads them to make laughably foolish judgements while standing on the hill of their own self-righteousness.

When you have the artistic dreams and livelihoods of hundreds of people in your hands, you too would act the same way when it comes to throwing money away on a Linux port.

It was a mistake to ever declare support for Linux, but that is all it was, not the stone bringing down Goliath.

No one is born a wizard. We still know too little about genetics and the mechanisms of
heredity. We sacrifice too little time and means on research. Unfortunately, we constantly try
to pass on inherited magical abilities in, so to say, a natural way. Results of these pseudo experiments
can be seen all too often in town gutters and within temple walls. We see too
many of them, and too frequently come across morons and women in a catatonic state,
dribbling seers who soil themselves, seeresses, village oracles and miracle-workers, cretins
whose minds are degenerate due to the inherited, uncontrolled Force.
These morons and cretins can also have offspring, can pass on abilities and thus
degenerate further. Is anyone in a position to foresee or describe how the last link in such a
chain will look?
Most of us wizards lose the ability to procreate due to somatic changes and dysfunction of
the pituitary gland. Some wizards – usually women – attune to magic while still maintaining
efficiency of the gonads. They can conceive and give birth – and have the audacity to
consider this happiness and a blessing. But I repeat: no one is born a wizard. And no one
should be born one! Conscious of the gravity of what I write, I answer the question posed at
the Congress in Cidaris. I answer most emphatically: each one of us must decide what she
wants to be – a wizard or a mother.
I demand all apprentices be sterilized. Without exception.
Tissaia de Vries, The Poisoned Source


- mages are doing something regular humans don't which makes them lose their ability to procreate
- they are not sterilized, else she wouldn't have to demand it
- what's heavily implied is that Tissaia looks with contempt at parenthood and, in her opinion, woman should either be a mother or a sorceress, not both
- it's brought up because Tissaia's essay is a foreword to a chapter in Blood of Elves where a certain sorceress close to Tissaia becomes a mother figure to Ciri
- Aretuza is not a place for Yennefer to dump a girl with visions and bad dreams, it's a place where mages help Sources learn to control their power before they go insane
- rulers of the North had plans of their own for Cintra and have already agreed to murder Ciri before she was even brought to Ellander; that's the most likely reason they fled
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zyvik;n9370901 said:
Not nessecerally because of magic, more likely due to the old age:
Most of us wizards lose the ability to procreate due to somatic changes and dysfunction of the pituitary gland. Some wizards — usually women — attune to magic while still maintaining efficiency of the gonads. They can conceive and give birth — and have the audacity to consider this happiness and a blessing. But I repeat: no one is born a wizard. And no one should be born one! Conscious of the gravity of what I write, I answer the question posed at the Congress in Cidaris. I ask most emphatically: each one of us must decide what she wants to be — a wizard or a mother.
Yet this doesn't appear to apply to other users of magic, Priests, for example.

Zyvik;n9370901 said:
Don't forget that Tissaia is no longer the rector of Aretuza, Margarita is. And she actually mentiones her students as possible candidates for Tankred's wifes. And excludes them not because they're unable to give birth, but because they're still too green to be the Lodge's "agents".
I don't think whoever runs the school get to be a eugenicist.
The leaders of the Chapter, made those higher level decisions.
Likely formulated this decision after the Congress in Cidaris. If anything, that shows it very clearly was up for discussion.

Regardless, if it is a simple effect of Magic use, Yen never mentions to Ciri that magic use will sterilize her from mutations? Kindof something you would think worth mentioning to a teenager.
Triss was concerned that Ciri might be upset if the "accelerantes" damaged Ciri's womanly charms.
Yennifer doesn't tell Ciri that the subject matter she will study at school will sterilize her. Quite a contrast.
Why "ooodrin" assumes Yennifer does not believe Ciri would become infertile is beyond me.

Zyvik;n9370901 said:
How many mages are actually loyal to the Brotherhood? Some are loyal to their kings, some only to themselves. There are healers like Marti Sodergren, scholars like Sheala de Tancarville and teachers like Margarita Laux-Antille. So the brainwashing is clearly not very successful. Plus Aretuza is stated to be apolitical (at least under Rita's leadership).
Apoltical to Kings, but not The Chapter.

As Vilgeforz mentioned, all the mages who didn't agree to adhere to "The Law" were wiped out in a war.
What implementation of a loose and flaccid power structure results in all the none conformists being wiped out?

Clearly some amount of freedom is given but there are other things that are not negotiable.

Also, Phillipa wanted to punish Yennifer for going against the Lodge.
Where did Phillipa and the other Sorceresses, adopt this from?
The Lodge was just the Chapter 2.0.
What they were used to. With the members demanding obedience even to non-members (Yen and Ciri) in issues they considered worthy of their attention.
The attitude of a convent of gifted individuals acting as authoritarians didn't come from nowhere.


EDIT:
Good discussion by the way.
I must confess being late to the party, I seriously regret not having many places to discuss the books like when TW3 heightened interest.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
Zyvik;n9370901 said:
Not nessecerally because of magic, more likely due to the old age:

Not sure about that, according to Nenekke, Yennefer has "paid for certain gifts by losing others".
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
NukeTheMoon;n9371141 said:
Why "ooodrin" assumes Yennifer does not believe Ciri would become infertile is beyond me.

Ciri is a Source, rules that applies to regular sorceresses doesn't necessarily apply to her. Adalia, Calanthe's mother was identified as a Source. From what we know about Sources, she needed to undergo "magical training", else she would go insane. Obviously, that didn't happen and she certainly wasn't infertile, either. She was known for using her magical skills.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ooodrin;n9371531 said:
Ciri is a Source, rules that applies to regular sorceresses doesn't necessarily apply to her. Adalia, Calanthe's mother was identified as a Source. From what we know about Sources, she needed to undergo "magical training", else she would go insane. Obviously, that didn't happen and she certainly wasn't infertile, either. She was also known for using her magical skills (raising a drawbridge with a twitch of her eyebrows).

Yen put Ciri in a school where virtually all graduates are apparently infertile regardless of age, such as Triss Merigold.
Ciri is a Source, but that doesn't mean she's immune to the effects of becoming a Sorceress, in fact it is implied that Ciri's linage were not Sorceress, just that they had abilities.
Moving objects with their mind in the only thing ever revealed, a mild ability compared to what the Sorceresses can do.
Ciri as far as we are told, is the first of her line to have been entered into the school, and there's no reason to believe the fertility result would not be the same.

Also, Ciri's mother, grandmother and beyond were all very likely impregnated at 15 at the absolute latest. Remember how much pressure Calamity was under from the nobility to marry of Pavetta at her 15ith birthday, with two failed attempts before that age.

Assuming that they had equivalent magical training, unlikely from a single teacher as opposed to school, in an undemanding environment, it wouldn't have even been half way into the magic training from school, which easily justifies the ladies remaining fertile at that time.
Also recall that no family wants their daughters to become Sorceresses, as it's not beneficial for the family, so it's unlikely Royal families had any interest in their daughters magical abilities other than the bare minimum.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9371141 said:
Regardless, if it is a simple effect of Magic use, Yen never mentions to Ciri that magic use will sterilize her from mutations? Kindof something you would think worth mentioning to a teenager.
Triss was concerned that Ciri might be upset if the "accelerantes" damaged Ciri's womanly charms.
Yennifer doesn't tell Ciri that the subject matter she will study at school will sterilize her. Quite a contrast.

She could have told about it possibly having that effect, but I am not sure what all this (or the other posts by "ooodrin") has to do with the topic of CDPR jumping the shark or not. :confused:

NukeTheMoon;n9370701 said:
Why don't you think Feral Interactive is interested in taking the risk on themselves, if it's such a good idea?

They would probably be interested if CDPR actually gave them the chance. As far as I know, porting companies do take at least some of the risks and development costs themselves, otherwise it would not be attractive to other publishers that do make deals with them, they just do not port games that do not look like being worth it.

Anyone that thinks that is the definitive marker of a company "falling as a developer" have serious issues making value judgments.

It is not one thing that makes them "fail as a developer", but it is one point towards what the OP originally started the topic about (and so would be the explanation that the port was dropped because of the risk of bad PR - it gives the impression that the image of being consumer friendly is prioritized over being actually consumer friendly), not least since a port was advertised, and then no explanation was given why it did not happen. Not that I consider them a "bad" company overall, compared to the direct competitors.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
Aretuza is a school for sorceresses, an academy. They don't produce sorceresses literally. ;)
Ciri was sent there to learn. After graduation, she would would have the required knowledge to control her abilities.
What happens afterwards would be up to her. By that time, she'd know about the possible risks (and if they apply to her at all).

Edit: We've derailed this tread enough already with our talk about sorceresses and babies, here's the appropriate one:
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...s-all-spoilers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sv3672;n9371771 said:
They would probably be interested if CDPR actually gave them the chance. As far as I know, porting companies do take at least some of the risks and development costs themselves, otherwise it would not be attractive to other publishers that do make deals with them, they just do not port games that do not look like being worth it.

It is not one thing that makes them "fail as a developer", but it is one point towards what the OP originally started the topic about (and so would be the explanation that the port was dropped because of the risk of bad PR - it gives the impression that the image of being consumer friendly is prioritized over being actually consumer friendly), not least since a port was advertised, and then no explanation was given why it did not happen. Not that I consider them a "bad" company overall, compared to the direct competitors.

Okay, for some reason, CDPR has probably considered a third party port for Linux, but decided against it. It could be their bad experience with the failure to port TW1, it could be its not worth the expense for a portion of Linux players.

I don't get what that has to do with consumer friendliness. The Linux hardcore aren't consumers.
They were a potential market that was determined not to be in the interest of the company to pursue.
Expecting a company to do things that result in a steep negative financial result is silly.

There is a big difference, between a company that tries to offer good value on its product, a company that squeezes every dollar it can from a product, and a company that burns money.

As consumers, if we are getting good value for the money, frree DLC missions, minor addons a the like, well priced expansions, that shows the company is in the former.
That they don't charge as much as they can shows they are not in the business of gouging the consumer, and nobody who wants more good games should hope for them to burn money away on a pointless port.
The only people who want that are people for whom having the Linux port is an end unto itself to help popularize Linux, and could really give a damn about the company they demonize as selfish, which is quite hypocritical.
 
ooodrin;n9371871 said:
Edit: We've derailed this tread enough already with our talk about sorceresses and babies, here's the appropriate one:
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...s-all-spoilers

It's nice to see someone remembers that my awesome thread still exits :D

Oh, regarding the topic...No, I'm not worried at all, because I don't consider TW3 to be a perfect game. It's a great game, but I'm sure CDPR can do even better.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9373231 said:
Expecting a company to do things that result in a steep negative financial result is silly.

There is no evidence that there would be a "steep negative financial result", if I recall correctly, reports from CDPR themselves said that the port of TW2 made a profit. On the other hand, it did receive some initial criticism for the bad quality. It was Virtual Programming's first port, and their tools still needed to be worked on, later releases by the same company have been better. Nevertheless, from the customer's point of view, having a port (even if it is not perfect) is better than not having a port. Thus, I see it as a negative when a company refuses to offer value to its potential customers because of concerns related to its image, it makes the consumer friendliness look fake.

As consumers, if we are getting good value for the money, frree DLC missions, minor addons a the like, well priced expansions, that shows the company is in the former.
That they don't charge as much as they can shows they are not in the business of gouging the consumer

Or that their marketing strategy works as intended: the free DLCs are a tiny fraction of the content in the game, it is basically stuff that could have simply been a part of the game from the beginning (after all, if something is free and small, what is the point of making it a DLC in the first place, if not marketing?), but it was cut and released separately for good PR. However, does this mean they are really better than the overtly "gouging" competitors, or just smarter? That is what I am not sure about yet.

To be honest, I do not get it why some are outraged over paid DLCs, I simply do not buy them myself if they are not worth the money, but offering them as an option does not take away anything.

and nobody who wants more good games should hope for them to burn money away on a pointless port.

As I already explained, it is not their money that would have been burnt away if contracting another company to do the port.
 
sv3672;n9374911 said:
There is no evidence that there would be a "steep negative financial result", if I recall correctly, reports from CDPR themselves said that the port of TW2 made a profit. On the other hand, it did receive some initial criticism for the bad quality. It was Virtual Programming's first port, and their tools still needed to be worked on, later releases by the same company have been better. Nevertheless, from the customer's point of view, having a port (even if it is not perfect) is better than not having a port. Thus, I see it as a negative when a company refuses to offer value to its potential customers because of concerns related to its image, it makes the consumer friendliness look fake.

Or that their marketing strategy works as intended: the free DLCs are a tiny fraction of the content in the game, it is basically stuff that could have simply been a part of the game from the beginning (after all, if something is free and small, what is the point of making it a DLC in the first place, if not marketing?), but it was cut and released separately for good PR. However, does this mean they are really better than the overtly "gouging" competitors, or just smarter? That is what I am not sure about yet.

To be honest, I do not get it why some are outraged over paid DLCs, I simply do not buy them myself if they are not worth the money, but offering them as an option does not take away anything.

As I already explained, it is not their money that would have been burnt away if contracting another company to do the port.

They did a port for TW2, claimed it was profitable, then didn't do a port for TW3.
That would lead me to believe port wasn't profitable, or more than a pain in the ass than it was worth, or the quality standard they desired was not met.
It's just how I expect corporations to put a brave face on things.
I pay much closer attention to their actions than anything they say.

Its interesting why you seem to think that DLC at a rip off price isn't a consumer friendliness problem, but the lack of a Linux port is.

A Linux port isn't even in the same category as a Nintendo or PS4 port from DX11, as the users of those platforms won't ever get to play the game if that's all they have.
Linux users choose to limit themselves to a Windows rip-off really just to give the middle finger to Microsoft, and some have an un-agreeable attitude towards anyone or anything that doesn't support that.

To me, it's silly. They knew it was going to be incompatible with most other software from the get go, but they get pissy about it whenever it turns out indeed to be the case.
God forbid also that a developer ever supports Linux for one piece of software then not another, the Linux users will flood in stirring up all kinds of sh*t.

They view those developers as worse than the ones that never tried at all, and believe moaning about it is more likely to produce a favorable result.
As if by trying it once the company got its toes wet, and is now straddling the fence, and just needs the right push to get it to fall where they want it to go.

The truth is this kind of sh*t storm happens every time Linux is involved.
If the port is buggy, released later, or anything else that shows a lack of parity, a small number of users trying to play games on a glorified OS for web-page servers get all pissed off about it, storming the beaches and making the rest of us wonder where all these screaming toddlers come from.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9377811 said:
That would lead me to believe port wasn't profitable, or more than a pain in the ass than it was worth, or the quality standard they desired was not met.

That is all speculation. But I do not think they would lie to their shareholders about what was profitable and what was not.

Its interesting why you seem to think that DLC at a rip off price isn't a consumer friendliness problem, but the lack of a Linux port is.

The former does not take away anything from the consumer, it is optional to buy, and usually not a big loss to ignore it. The latter makes the game unplayable to people using that platform. The Witcher 3 would not suddenly become a worse game if for some reason CDPR decided to release a horse armor DLC for $5, I just would not buy it. By the way, I consider stuff like those Dark Horse comics in a similar category as paid DLC. If anything, I might even welcome paid DLC that is actually good, unlike much of what was released for free. And in any case, I do not see a problem with a company wanting to make money, that is why they exist after all, while I do see a problem with the lack of honesty or transparency (see below).

A Linux port isn't even in the same category as a Nintendo or PS4 port from DX11, as the users of those platforms won't ever get to play the game if that's all they have.

There is no fundamental difference, nothing stops a Nintendo or PS4 user from buying a PC. Of course that would cost money, but so does a Windows license. Although the latter can be avoided by running the game with Wine - a few years after its original release, which actually has a number of advantages, and it can be bought when it is on sale at a 75% or better discount.

Linux users choose to limit themselves to a Windows rip-off really just to give the middle finger to Microsoft, and some have an un-agreeable attitude towards anyone or anything that doesn't support that.

Why Linux users choose to use their platform is entirely their business, not everyone's PC usage revolves around video games, there is no need to collectively insult people just because they are using a different operating system.

To me, it's silly. They knew it was going to be incompatible with most other software from the get go, but they get pissy about it whenever it turns out indeed to be the case.

In this particular case, people might be pissy because of being shown advertisements like this, and then never any official statement that the port was canceled, even though that probably happened long ago. That tricked some into buying the game in the hope of getting a port later, just to show their support. While doing that is generally not a good idea, this is a reputable company after all, why not trust them? By the way, a somewhat similar thing happened with the REDkit, CD Projekt even used the Skyrim paid mod scandal (which happened a few weeks before the release of Wild Hunt) to their advantage, people bought TW3 to show their support, and then no REDkit was delivered, nor any explanation given about why it was canceled. But that is another topic, and probably better not brought up again, as well as a couple of others I would rather not even mention right now. :)

They view those developers as worse than the ones that never tried at all, and believe moaning about it is more likely to produce a favorable result.

It is not quite right to generalize from some vocal minority, internet forums tend to show a distorted picture, 20-30 people with an agenda can ruin just about any forum. Yet there are a million or more Linux users on Steam alone. The more reasonable majority would welcome a port even if it is not perfect, they understand the difficulties associated with making it, and it is obviously better than nothing.

If the port is buggy, released later, or anything else that shows a lack of parity, a small number of users trying to play games on a glorified OS for web-page servers get all pissed off about it, storming the beaches and making the rest of us wonder where all these screaming toddlers come from.

If the decision making of a company can be swayed by a small number of "screaming toddlers", that already shows a problem. It is exactly what the thread was started about to begin with, the kind of attitude one can expect to see from a developer like BioWare. It is understandable if a company cares about its public image, but getting some flak from vocal minorities is kind of normal and hard to avoid. Also, if a developer bends easily to outrage culture, it usually just promotes even more and louder moaning and fighting, because those interested know that it will be effective. No wonder the BioWare community became so toxic. And it is an issue that is not necessarily limited to ports to less commonly used operating systems either, it can also end up affecting content. Not wanting to offend SJWs, book fans, and whatever other groups that could be expected to create bad PR for the company ultimately leads to watered down content, as it can often be seen in AAA games.

Now, did CDPR "jump the shark"? As I already said, I am not sure yet. There are some worrying signs, but nothing that would really warrant making that statement. We'll see what the future brings.
 
sv3672;n9379191 said:
Now, did CDPR "jump the shark"? As I already said, I am not sure yet. There are some worrying signs, but nothing that would really warrant making that statement. We'll see what the future brings.

Companies never tell their shareholders whats really up, it's confidential information. You couldn't have secrecy if every shareholder could investigate the goings on of the company, that isn''t a unique things to CDPR or even software development. Truthfully, shareholders want results, not to know the going on of every company they invest in. They only really care if some sh*t really hits the fan.

Leaving the discussion of DLC, as for me once I've spent many hundred of hours playing a game I lose interest in how much money I've spent on it. However $5 horse DLC does piss me off.

Linux was never made with the expectation of it being for gaming. PC Gamers generally spend many, many times more on games and hardware than they do on the OS.
I really don't care what everyone's PC usage revolves around, I care for what it makes sense for gaming to revolve around, and that isn't Linux, regardless of other PC usage.
I'm sure Linux is great for other things, but I don't believe in trying to shove a square peg in a round hole, and I don't have the time for it.

Also if you're saying the game can be run on WINE then I don't get what the complaint is even about, if bugs aren't a concern. I can't testify to its use, I don't use it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpqnBZwAEtk ...but this dude seems pretty happy about it.

I've already agreed with you completely that advertising a false expectation is bad idea.
But I also know that if companies never advertised things that were only in developmental stages you would never have anything presented to you until the final product was on the shelves.

I never said "a company can be swayed by a small number of "screaming toddlers"", I did say that when Linux users stir up a fuss over something related to Linux and gaming the rest of us wonder what exactly the big surprise is. We have been buying windows for years and see no reason to try and save a little bit of money on the linchpin of the PC platform, and those that do skimp are making a mistake from the get go. The rest after all that is just stupidity to us.

"and then no REDkit was delivered, nor any explanation given about why it was canceled. But that is another topic, and probably better not brought up again, as well as a couple of others I would rather not even mention right now. :)"
That is actually something I would consider much more relevant that Linux support, if we are returning to Original Topic.

A decline in mod support is a more serious indicator of something wrong.
Although I think that was a miss-step in a long series of miss-steps in TW3s development, which is why it was delayed repeatedly (IIRC).
And there are some modding tool, just not as good as TW2 tools. I don't know what the reason for that is.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
I know too little about CP2077 to judge whether TW3 is the point when CDPR peaked. Yes, in a lot of ways, TW3 is my favorite in the series (books-oriented main storyline, presence of some characters I wanted to see since forever, open world and sidequests that didn't bore me to death after 15-20h, overall presentation, soundtrack...). I have some complains, of course, but my opinion of the game is overwhelmingly positive.
My biggest concern for the future is implementation of multiplayer in the future CDPR titles. If I find SP lacking compared to MP, or online component too intrusive, then I will know things went fubar.
I've seen no reason to worry about political correctness yet.
 
Top Bottom