We both wrote an essay on this thread. I hand to cut down your post when quoting you, because if I were to comment with my own interjections, there would be an entire page just for my reply. Then of course your reply to my reply....see how long this would get? LOL.
But seriously, I'm sure that we are not the only ones that feel The Witcher is about a Witcher named Geralt of Rivia (or as Geralt said during "Final Preparations")
"Geralt......Geralt who?"
"of fucking Rivia!"
We know there are other Witchers, but the story is about the path of one Witcher, Geralt. Should CDPR do something else as a change? Yes, but maybe as....I don't know, an add on online game play, for others to create their own Witchers or what have you, but leave the main story as is. As you can see from the debate that I had with another friend, we see it differently. You agree with me on the going back in the story line arc. Though I do have to admit, I'm spoiled be the controls of TW3, I don't think I could play the first game. I like the ease of potions, meditation, inventory & the in game signs wheel. To me, much easier than TW2.
That is an excellent comparison. It's like their idea that somebody else can be Indiana Jones....or that there needs to be an all female cast in a remake of Ghostbusters. Why change what has worked? I know, it's only the older gamers that don't want change. And the game companies care more about the "Almighty Dollar" (or Pound, Yen, Deutsche Mark, Euro.....what have you).
In my opinion, TW4 without Geralt will sell to ones that haven't read the books, or to ones that read the books but want to continue the universe. To me, I can't buy it. That's me. They may continue on with a 5th one, but by then....they may scrap the whole idea of any more Witcher games. Now IDK how many of the CDPR execs look on this forum, but I have had in the back of my mind of doing it myself. I'm in college working on my Bachelors of Science degree for Information Technology and have always said that I will move to Game Development after this degree. Maybe by then, I'll have something on the board to take to investors. I know there is a lot of other stuff involved, but it's a game plan. Sure, I'm 45, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done because of what my age will be after I get my degrees.
I also have a feeling that since the consoles are getting popular again. Game devs won't be able to pay the amount that the console companies will raise it to in order to put out patches for the consoles. Right now it is rumored to be $40 thousand per patch, with 0 investment return. As in, the company gets the money from the console platforms, but if they have to do a patch, they pay to release it on the consoles but can't charge for a game fix, so they loose $80 thousand for 2 consoles, $120k if 3 consoles. Should be 14 patches have been done for the consoles. Quick math, that's $1.12 million dollars that they will not get any of that back. Patching on the PC is easier and 0 cost to put the patch out to the platform.
I look for either 1 or 2 things happening:
1. Game companies will not make big open world games for the consoles anymore, just put out medium size with less things to happen that would need to be patched. Big open world games, like TW3, TES Skyrim, FO4, will be for PC only. This is the reason why I will be getting the GOTY edition for my PC when I get it back in October.
2. Game companies will start charging console users for patches. Now they won't call it that, of course. It'll be some kind of "Exclusive Club Membership" price to offset the losses of the patches. Look at something like EA's, EA Access. You pay $29.95 p/year to have exclusive early downloads of games, and free games from the EA Library of games past. That's a good offset for patches, that could justify the cost of patching on consoles.
Those are, of course, just a BadWolf opinion. Opinions that make sense to me.
BadWolf