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.