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

+
I see. However, I feel that a basic distinction between the DLCs and the Expansions needs to be made. They are not the same thing, as @val.mitev pointed out above. A statement explaining the difference would be more practical from a business standpoint, than the course you suggest. I feel there are simply insufficient grounds for a discount on the mere pretext of a confusion of contents. A discount would be generally appreciated, but I see no compelling reason here for it.



Why not both things? Of course we dont manage their economy, we dont know how much impact would this have in their benefits, its just a request.

---------- Updated at 08:10 PM ----------

There are expansion level content packs, not just some hat DLCs. There's a significant difference.
It's obvious that you want to get them for free (everyone loves free stuff), but this is content that they are just starting to work on and considering the scope of it, it's fair to ask for a price.

You can't compare the 16 DLCs (free for the loyal fans as you put it) with these 2, there's a big difference, but I feat that all reason is falling on deaf ears.
I'll gladly pay for this content and I love the stance CDPR are taking on this, wait, see, buy if you think it's worth it.

You are right, and i dont know why i cant give you red point but, i agree with you, i remember the zombie nightmare of the Red Dead Redemption, it was large and awesome. I dont ask them to be free because we deserve it, im just saying that as an advertising campaign it would be very good for CDProjekt's public image, because it has been deteriorated by somehow not accomplish, what people though the 16 free dlc meant. I support a discount for all the preordered or at least the Collectors Edition people for wasting more money. Of course, this is just a request that may be a win.win for both.

---------- Updated at 08:14 PM ----------

You've killed me..

I mean, if more money means more economic support, shouldnt this be more legitimated to get a better deal that still, can be for both and thats what i mainly support?
 
Just a question... why are you so interested in the benefits that CDPR can get? CDPR is a private company, and unless you're a partner entitled to dividend or a tax inspector, their benefits should matter to you little or nothing as a customer
 
Why not both things? Of course we dont manage their economy, we dont know how much impact would this have in their benefits, its just a request.

You're free to make requests. However, as nice as a discount would be, I still can't see a practical reason to give it. I think the developers have a loyal, appreciative group of followers as is -- as we see from the responses to your first post. But, there are just too many business variables involved in offering a reduced price on the scale you suggest. It could be a boost to public relations, yes, but only for a while, and would likely prompt further complaints -- similar to your own -- demanding that everybody should get a discount, whether they are loyal supporters or not. Where would it end? Realistically, CD Projekt cannot be in the business of giving everything away for nothing.
 
Last edited:
Just a question... why are you so interested in the benefits that CDPR can get? CDPR is a private company, and unless you're a partner entitled to dividend or a tax inspector, their benefits should matter to you little or nothing as a customer

I just say that they may have used their monopolitic position to make two new extensions of the game to get more money, because they can see the expectactions around them, its not bad, but, still a little bit rude.
And i care about their money because the better deal from the ones with the Collectors Edition to all the preordered people is a matter of how much money will that cost to them and if it is possible, if they are getting a lot of money, great, fantastic, i like people or companies getting good benefits.

---------- Updated at 08:32 PM ----------

You're free to make requests. However, as nice as a discount would be, I still can't see a practical reason to give it. I think the developers have a loyal, appreciative group of followers as is -- as we see from the responses to your first post. But, there are just too many business variables involved in offering a reduced price on the scale you suggest. It could be a boost to public relations, yes, but only for a while, and would likely prompt further complaints -- similar to you own -- demanding that everybody should get a discount, whether they are loyal supporters or not. Where would it end? Realistically, CD Projekt cannot be in the business of giving everything away for nothing.

I think it could be worth it for them, its just an idea i give, they will do whatever they want to and it will be fine.

---------- Updated at 08:33 PM ----------

Guy, if you don't want to pay for the expansions don't get them.

I want them and i will buy them even at their actual cost, im just trying to get a win-win deal here for all of us, Is it so hard to understand ?
 
Good luck.

 
And now something completely different...

Reeeegis.... Reeeegis... Where are you, you sneaky....you'd better show up in W3...
If not I'm gonna drag you to the expansion! You know... Whine for me... Blood for y'a....
 
They aren't pressured by the publisher to produce mediocre stuff on regular short term basis and stop supporting it as soon as the next mass market thing comes out. And they aren't pressured to engage in these crooked cut content practices. Independent studios have a luxury of making their own decisions when to release, what to release and how.

Again, you are talking as if so called independent studios aren't companies, and have no deadlines or market pressures of their own, and probably more so, since they do not have the capital the big corporations have.
 
Again, you are talking as if so called independent studios aren't companies, and have no deadlines or market pressures of their own, and probably more so, since they do not have the capital the big corporations have.

No, I'm talking about them not being hostages to crooked investors. I think I explained myself clearly. I never said they aren't companies or anything the like.
 
No, I'm talking about them not being hostages to crooked investors. I think I explained myself clearly. I never said they aren't companies or anything the like.

"Crooked investors"? LOL.
Dude, even the "independent studios" have salaries to pay, taxes to pay, overhead to pay... and guess what? Most likely got some sort of funding beyond their own pockets. So being the bank from which they got a loan, or the people who bought shares, they have financial obligations and deadlines to meet.

You have this romanticized view of what an independent studio is.
 
Yes, those who can only see short term profit are simply greedy and it's mostly because of them that many good projects are shelved or ruined (if they are funded by them). Nothing really to argue here about.

No one wants to go into anything with their money to get nothing out of it or lose money, that's the role of an investor - to seek out profitable ventures. Very few people have money just have money that they can pour unconditionally into something without a return. So therefore they invest in things they believe will succeed or they have a stake in. It's not crooked, it's how it has worked since the system started. The devs agree to a certain amount of funding to provide a product or service in a set amount of time, so they need to stick to it as best as possible in order for investors to stick with them. Investing in a project that has been going for years is not what I consider 'short term'.
 
Last edited:
My $0.02:

$20 U.S. is quite good these days for an 'Expansion', considering it's a total of 30+ hours.
Heck, many $60 U.S. base games don't include 30+ hours of content. So there's a fair comparison.

Although, since I'm notoriously frugal (or cheap as some call it), I'll be waiting to see if I actually enjoy the base game, before biting the bullet (sword) on the 'Expansion'.

By the time I actually complete the base game, how much will the 'Expansion' cost?
Who knows - maybe the same, or maybe a bit less. A gamble I enjoy taking :)
Either way, this expansion isn't going anywhere, so there's no rush.

En garde my fellow Witchers!
 
No one wants to go into anything with their money to get nothing out of it or lose money, that's the role of an investor - to seek out profitable ventures

It's not about losing. It's about them being greedy. I.e. they want more money, and when they invest, they can demand more money at the cost of either quality or creativity or whatever. They benefit, the rest get worse result. That's what I'm talking about. I.e. it's not a black and white choice of profit or lose. It's about greed.

A clear example of this problem are major ISP companies, which figured out that expanding their mobile networks gives them way higher profits, so they stopped expanding their landline fiber optic networks almost completely (since profits there are lower). I.e. it's not like they don't profit - they get insane profit margins even in landline networks. It's just that mobile ones give them even more, so their greed results in people getting garbage bandwidth in 21st century.
 
CDPR is still a shareholder company. I bet CDPR were pressured into releasing the expansions now due to the multiple delays The Witcher 3 has had so far. That would be my guess, seems a bit silly to announce and try sell us expansions so soon.
 
Have a look at all your surroundings, people in my college who doesnt have a console or even a decent computer, is going to buy a console just for playing The Witcher 3, and they are not fans of anything, they just like what they see. All the magazines are practically masturbating with this game, you can tell by looking up the news, every very very very little detal like for example that All the The Witcher 3 map has been checked by a level designer, I mean, thats a bullshit new isnt it? Not really important, but still has it own article, and about the other games they dont publish not even half of that because all the magazines are waiting this monster, you can tell that there is much more expectation about the witcher, than GTA.
Personal experience and impressions cannot attest to the numbers we are speaking about here. They might give a feeling, but that's it. Projecting from the 10, 50, 100 people in your real life to tens of millions around the world is a leap. And even if CDPR makes billions of dollars - so what? You are still not explaining by this why those who bought the CE are entitled to all future expansion packs of TW3, worked after TW3 is complete, and long after the CE were announced - the content of which you knew. Saying "because they're rich" doesn't cut it.

You might say "it's to improve their reputation". To that I answer - alright, let's say for a moment that once they're filthy rich and wiping their asses with Franklins they should hand out gifts to their fans, because it's in their best interest.

Why should they hand out gifts to a small group of smaller market influence - that is, those who bought the CE - instead of a larger group with larger influence - that is, everyone else? Do you think that it's in the company's best, utilitarian interests to gift a small number of people with the expansion packs instead of a larger number of people with smaller things?

You have a lot to prove if you want this argument to strike home.

I should have said they are "going" to win more than enough.
And I shouldn't have even mentioned that because your meaning was clear and it was just me being a nitpicking ass, so sorry.

About monopolistic, tell me a single game in the whole year who can match the witcher 3 and be a capable competitor, no one bruh, no one, only a new TES could have done that and its not going to be this year. They have all the RPG's prizes for sure, and very likely the GOTY.
It's ironic that later in your post you talk about fanboy bias, but now you decide this so casually.

Anyway, a lot of things are being confused here.
A) Even if they win all GOTY awards from all over the net, that still doesn't say anything about the sales.
B) Delivering the best game of the year (which is subjective) doesn't make you a monopoly.
mo·nop·o·ly said:
the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
CDPR aren't the only company in the industry. You're narrowing down the definition to a company who creates an entertainment product (not even a service or a trade of resource) in a very specific genre. Which it isn't even the only one in doing (BioWare, Bethesda). Unless, in addition to that definition you also want to argue that since it might be of a higher quality than other products in the same genre, then it's a monopoly. Or that since it's the only product of that kind releasing in 2015, then it's a monopoly. Both of which are bonkers.

That is completely distorting the definition of the word and emptying it of meaning - and I believe it's just to use some term that's very evocative.

C) Even if it is a monopoly - I still fail to see how how--
I just say that they may have used their monopolitic position to make two new extensions of the game to get more money, because they can see the expectactions around them, its not bad, but, still a little bit rude.
--is rude? Rude? Really? They are adding new content. On which they will be working (hard, it's safe to assume)?
Would you rather they... not work on new content?
Why?
How is this rude?
Or should they not have charged for their work? Would that have made it polite?

What the hell is going on here?

They didnt say anything about paying DLC's months ago, not a single word, only 16 free DLC, and when they realised the expectation around the game, they knew they could make more money out of it with paying DLC's. Which is perfect, but still a monopolistic move.
A) What is the final point of them not saying anything about the expansion packs months ago? Is this to suggest that it's a decision on the spur of the moment? That this is spontaneous? I'm also pretty sure that CDPR have very clear plans for 2016 and 2017 which they aren't yet informing us. Since when do they need to announce all their plans in advance? In fact, I've heard more complaints about them announcing this too early. Yours is the first post I've read that suggests they should have talked about this earlier.
B) This isn't DLC, unless you narrow that definition to the purely literal sense of the worse, which is content which you download. These are expansion packs. Equating a 30 hour product to DLCs as we know them today, which tend to be either accessories or just minor quests, is twisting what's going on here.
C) "They knew they could make more money out of it with paying DLCs". Well, first, it's not DLC. Second, yeah, they can make more money - which is absolutely fine. How is a business company coming up with an idea to make more money somehow negative? And third, this is not a spur of the moment decision. If you think a company - which you yourself predict to earn billions of dollars - acts on these moment-to-moment impulses, and that this wasn't planned long in advance, then I'm... I'm not sure how to communicate anymore.
D) "Monopoly" - I referred to this above.
E) They actually did tell you of their intentions. Long ago.
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/archive/index.php/t-22007.html
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...-3-Wild-Hunt?p=1591495&viewfull=1#post1591495
They also hinted at this move when they said that if they'll charge for additional content, they'll make sure it's worthwhile.

I should give up here, i wanted to make a formal proposition to CDProjekt gathering support, but it is obvious that some has the critic spirit dead when it comes to CDProjekt, just think what would you think about this if this was another game an another company with the same ethic reputation with the players. It's terrible the fanboy bias. Cant make a critic opinion without getting publicly shot.
It happens way too often that someone has an opinion - a criticism of sort - and when he's answered with counter-arguments, he thinks that the critical spirit is dead (which is ironic, since what he is being answered with is criticism, just not at the direction he may have hoped). An opinion, just because it is an opinion, is not immune to criticism. Criticism is not immune to criticism. A criticism should be an argument. An argument needs to be chained properly. When it's not, when it's not coherent, when the terms are messed up, twisted or emptied of meaning, then there is nothing wrong with criticizing the criticism.

Saying that this is "fanboy bias" is an ad hominem. You are not responding to what the people answering you are saying, you are just talking about them and their bias - without explaining why. Now if there were a bunch of people answering you with shouts and curses and that's it, then maybe you would know there's nothing to bother with.

I've wasted a big chunk of my life on this post of mine, literally breaking it down to bullet points. My previous post to you was also fairly lengthy. That's blind fanboyism? Could be that I'm full of shit and an arrogant fucker, but at the very least I didn't reduce my posts to "shut up, CDPR rules, what do you know". We have different definitions of monopoly and DLC. Now we also have a different definition of fanboys.
 
Last edited:
CDPR is still a shareholder company. I bet CDPR were pressured into releasing the expansions now due to the multiple delays The Witcher 3 has had so far. That would be my guess, seems a bit silly to announce and try sell us expansions so soon.

Yeah I can't understand why the big debate? CDPR need the money, there's no way they would announce a pre-order before the game is even out otherwise that's just silly. I'd actually go as far as to say that the expansions are reworks of cut content considering the timeframe but thats just an educated guess.
 
and when they invest, they can demand more money at the cost of either quality or creativity or whatever.
Actually, they can't just demand more money, no. That is not how it works.

A clear example of this problem are major ISP companies, which figured out that expanding their mobile networks gives them way higher profits, so they stopped expanding their landline fiber optic networks almost completely (since profits there are lower). I.e. it's not like they don't profit - they get insane profit margins even in landline networks. It's just that mobile ones give them even more, so their greed results in people getting garbage bandwidth in 21st century.

Still on the land lines, uh? The reason why companies are steering towards mobile is simple: it is the proliferation of mobile devices. There is a demand for it. Cellphones, laptops, tablets, watches... and yes, corporations have a right to seek profit. And guess what? It is this "greed" that drives advances in consumer technology. Someone had to risk his/her money for it.
 
Top Bottom