When I say "cut", it's at the moment where the story was only on "paper"
Honestly, if it's "pre-heist", why not. But it could be a shame in my opinion, because there are so/too many interesting things (for me) to devellop after the heist. At least, way more interesting than V and Jackie as simple mercs who work together (like V's LI, VDBs, blackwall, Mr Blue Eyes for quote only few).
But it's only my opinion, and anyway, whatever it could be, I'll buy it for sure
Last edited:
1. A leak can be true even if its not official information. Trusting it as official info would be wrong tho especially if you dont know who leaked it(Heck even official info can be wrong). The sources needs too be clear and validated for it too become somewhat trustworthy information if its leaked info tho and if the leaker want too be anonomus the journalist needs too validate it, it can still be false tho. This article seems too be about the lawsuite tho and with some speculation/old news added. I was refering too another article that was just "leaked" info about 1.5 + next gen so my misstake.
2. Yes thats true. We have no right for further info from CDPR unless they want too give it. I never claimed we hade any right too anything. What i meant too say is speculation and made up rumors/leaks/info happends more when we have zero official info. Thats just the way it is.
3. Seems ive been referencing another article so deleted some of my reply.
You must be kidding when you say that IGN are not reputable. They are a media leader, and have been for well over a decade. It's the responsibility of journalists that are critics to offer their personal opinions, and it's very wise for any publisher involved in critiquing any sort of product to have a range of different opinions on board.
Personally, I find most of IGN's reviews to be pretty accurate. Don't agree with everything, but I've never encountered anything that made me think the reviewer was playing a different game. What more information is needed to give their audience a good sense of what a game is about?
(I have no idea what you are referring to with the "too much water" comment.)
I'm not sure what you mean by the "constant 10/10 masterpieces". IGN very rarely awards a 10/10 for anything. They have awarded a total of 52 games a score of 10, across all platforms, from their debut in 1996 until the present day. They have written literally thousands of reviews.
I'm not sure what you're basing this assessment of their reputability on.
What I mean is that it would be borderline impossible to alter the way the core storyline works at this point. (Mechanically, I mean -- going in and altering the code to change the way things happen. That would be a hellish undertaking likely to cause more problems than it's worth.) I think whatever the DLC includes will be either before, after, or aside from the core storyline -- much the way Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine worked for TW3.When I say "cut", it's at the moment where the story was only on "paper"
Honestly, if it's "pre-heist", why not. But it could be a shame in my opinion, because there are so/too many interesting things (for me) to devellop after the heist. At least, way more interesting than V and Jackie as simple mercs who work together (like V's LI, VDBs, blackwall, Mr Blue Eyes for quote only few).
But it's only my opinion, and anyway, whatever it could be, I'll buy it for sure
The other stuff you suggest are surely options that would work fine! I think there are a fair few side quests that could be exploded into much bigger experiences.
Absolutely correct on the highlighted part. It also doesn't matter if the source of the leak is a paragon of honesty sworn under oath to speak no lies and monitored 24/7. They are not employees of the CDPR studio with first-hand understanding of the situation. They are a person who thinks things because of what they see and hear, from the outside looking in, with no practical knowledge of anything going on. Only what they think and hear. That's never a valid source.
What I'm clarifying is that it does not matter if a "leak" is 100% accurate in hindsight. It's still hindsight. It's perfectly possible for me to make up a complete lie about a company's CEO actually being guilty of embezzling money from the company for years and leak it to all sorts of sources...then lo and behold...a year later the CEO is indicted for embezzlement, which has been going on for years. <--- That does not make me a credible source. It does not "validate" my leak. I was talking out of my butt and had absolutely no actual knowledge of anything at that time. I was lying. The fact that it actually happened is just coincidence. I don't get any points for that. (I should be punished for making up a lie, regardless of whether it ultimately came true or not.)
The same is true of people that speculate, and then a certain portion of their speculations happen to prove true. That doesn't mean they actually had any knowledge or understood anything of any validity. It means they happened to guess right. It's hindsight.
Hindsight is not a reputable source for anything. Yes, some leaks will be true. Yes, others will be totally false. Most will be grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted. All of them will eventually need to be officially verified.
Hence, putting any stock in any leak at any time for any purpose other than entertainment and interest...is digging a deep hole, very quickly, straight down, with a gigantic shovel.
Yup. You seem fine with it. I'm perfectly fine with it. But there are many who get impatient and start filling their heads with second-hand information, forgetting (or never realizing to begin with) that such information is not necessarily official, accurate, or even true, regardless of what the second-hand source "says".
Hmm not sure i agree with that tbh. Example: if i work at CDPR and leak some info too a journalist who then publishes it without my name or known employment (and without CDPR's Ok) and it was 100% right, would you still consider that hindsight? Theres a reason most companys has whistleblower policys atleast in my country for example. Like ive said it really depends on who and how its "leaked".
Im not saying that people should accept any leaks as "truth" without any evidence but should practice proper source criticism and a heavy skepticism...
Wish we could tune YouTubers out... so tired of seeing a bunch of HUGE SPLASH headlines screaming about the latest 'shock news' from CDPR and in fact it's just a guy in an Adidas hat reading the latest junk from someone else over a backdrop of unconnected footage from the game.
They are dead to me!
Well, when devs are silent, people will hop in on any source of info about the progress.
With that being said, some proper communication would be nice. I do realize, that they've probably learned from their mistakes and don't want to generate too much hype, but this silence is getting a bit concerning. Especially considering lack of new content.
With that being said, some proper communication would be nice. I do realize, that they've probably learned from their mistakes and don't want to generate too much hype, but this silence is getting a bit concerning. Especially considering lack of new content.
Last edited:
maybe, maybe not. look at the road map and no word if everything is on track for a Q1 update
Well they postpone december release because it wasnt on track giving themself up to additional 3 months. There is no more information so far so its safe to assume that they will release it in Q1. Question is more like is it 2 or 5 weeks from now. Major patches had live stream before release so its safe to assume that when they will know thats its ready, we will see something like that couple days ahead.
Inb4: we will get a standard length, heavily edited "gameplay" trailer of the Next-Gen update, looking like every other Cyberpunk trailer to date. It will have no actual merit, as it will not show how well the game actually runs. Not a single element that was discussed, criticised and pointed out over the entirety of 2021 will be in any way addressed or presented in that trailer. The trailer will pretend as if the game is-- and always was-- perfect from day one, and no technical issues have ever been raised by the community and/or the reviewers. There will be no in-depth explanation of what's been done to improve the game, and no real-life metrics of how the game actually runs on current-gen (PS5 and SeriesX/S) consoles. The trailer will be followed by a dry statement from CDPR that more information will be revealed in due time. The statement will not be posted in yellow but in red, white and black. No Next-Gen Update release date will be given at the release of the trailer.
That trailer will be released at the end of January if things are actually on track, mid February if they are not. In first case the update will launch at the end of March to stay true to the "promise". In the second case the update will launch anywhere between May and June.
In either of cases the Witcher 3 Update will launch in Autumn at best. Personally I don't expect that one to launch earlier than November.
That trailer will be released at the end of January if things are actually on track, mid February if they are not. In first case the update will launch at the end of March to stay true to the "promise". In the second case the update will launch anywhere between May and June.
In either of cases the Witcher 3 Update will launch in Autumn at best. Personally I don't expect that one to launch earlier than November.
There are different types of "leaks". The sole purpose of all advertisement and publicity is to manipulate the audience into thinking and feeling a certain way about a certain thing (mostly to generate interest and excitement about a product). There are many ways to do this. Intentionally leaking clues that can be "discovered" by journalists or the average fan is a primary way of going for free "viral" advertising. It's a passingly common practice in advertising nowadays.
However, to be an educated and responsible consumer, I need to be aware of what such a "leak" is, and what it means. It's an unconfirmed tidbit of information. Yup -- certainly seems to be legit! And thus people post about it, journalists report on it, and out across multimedia it goes...free of charge. (As opposed to a studio paying for the specific publishing materials and merchandise of a formal advertising campaign.)
And anyone that decides to take that leak as gospel is putting all of their faith in something that is not official. Doesn't matter if people can successfully trace it back to this or that studio directly -- it was not officially released. It's a rumor. Whether the rumor turns out to be accurate or not, it's hindsight.
It's not valid for someone to try to alter the definition and application of a word simply because a certain circumstance allows for it. Hindsight is hindsight -- the end. It doesn't stop being hindsight simply because I can prove a wildly coincidental correlation. This is why we have authorities in place that decide: "This is official. This is not. This is admissible for consideration. This is hearsay and speculation." The key aspect is simple: correlation is not causation. It must be proven using the scientific method, or it does not apply. And if there is even one variable that cannot be 100% accounted for, then the correlation is proven 100% untrue.
What does this mean for consumers? Stop putting weight on advertisements as guarantees of anything. That's not what advertisement is. Until you have the product in-hand, you have no idea what it is, how it works, how well it words, or whether you're going to like it or not. If you let advertisement lead you around by the nose, it will lead you to exactly the same place every time: wherever it wants you to be. There is never a guarantee that chasing the carrot on the string is going to be to your liking.
If someone is not willing to be patient, think rationally at all times, and avoid letting their emotions and excitement get the better of them, then they're going to receive exactly what they set themselves up for. Everyone is responsible for themselves.
What you're saying at the end there is on the nose. Only one thing needs to change. It's not that people "should" practice proper source criticism and heavy skepticism -- it's that people are directly responsible for practicing proper source criticism and heavy skepticism. If someone fails to think and act rationally, it's their problem, no one else's.
Last edited:
Proper source criticism, exactly, be it being aware of possible intentions on Official reports, that may separate the statement from truth aswell as in leaks. Leaks actually refer to information that got out, so a truth that the official channels didn't wish to share. A false leak is again connected to an intention other than inform of truth.
All very true (as are the posts by Sigil).
I'd add, a "proper" source is a difficult Unicorn to witness nowadays. It would be cool if there was a solid line between leak, rumor and official statement. I'm not so sure it's wise to think one exists anymore. Those first two and the third are becoming increasingly blurred.
To explain better, I see a leak or rumor and the first thought is it's interesting but it may or may not be true. A target date, planned feature, piece of content, whatever. Someone said it's there. Do I know it's there? Nope. All I know is someone said it is there. I see an official announcement and have the same thought. Someone said it's there. I don't know anything beyond someone said it was there. It might work out that way. It might not.
Sometimes I may not even know what is supposedly there. Given the vague wording and phrasing frequently thrown around.
Which destination does the above lead us to? A game is approaching release, an update or addition is in the pipe, a target date is set, a statement is made, whatever it may be. Pull out that little paper with words of wisdom written on it from the back pocket. "Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see". It "happens" when it's witnessed and confirmed to be there. Not a moment before. The source is irrelevant. Leak, rumor, official source. They're all held to the same barometer.
Here is the kicker. When it comes to free additions it's not such a big deal. It's already been paid for. What about purchasing decisions? What happens if nobody takes the proverbial leap of faith?
Exactly!
But it's almost impossible to argue a second-hand statement as evidence of either validity or intent.
Validity is simple. It's not valid unless it can be proven that the second-hand source received information directly from a first-hand source, including all pertinent details: name, place, date, and exactly what was said. Like a formal interview. Even better if there's also a video.
As for intent, give it up. This is why we have court cases that stretch on for years. Rumor has a funny effect: people believe whatever they hear. As soon as it sounds logical, like some of the dots connect, they assume it must be true. That's not how it works. The minute the situation is actually addressed with the first-hand source, the points that the rumors make are often mired in misconceptions, miscommunications, lack of accurate information altogether, or are simply plain untrue. And a first-hand source will have little to no problem proving that beyond any reasonable doubt.
Thus, no matter what people think or reason or deduce through accurate and thorough speculation and fact-checking -- it's still not the entire picture. It's still speculation and gossip. They'll simply have to wait until official information is released to see how it goes.
(And you'll almost invariably find that a "false leak" is not connected in any way to the actual source. If a studio "leaks" something intentionally, it's part of an advertising campaign, and the information will prove 100% accurate. The studio will then either play coy and never confirm it...which is kind of the point of releasing fun little leaks...or they may simply say, "Yup! That was us!")
Amen.All very true (as are the posts by Sigil).
I'd add, a "proper" source is a difficult Unicorn to witness nowadays. It would be cool if there was a solid line between leak, rumor and official statement. I'm not so sure it's wise to think one exists anymore. Those first two and the third are becoming increasingly blurred.
To explain better, I see a leak or rumor and the first thought is it's interesting but it may or may not be true. A target date, planned feature, piece of content, whatever. Someone said it's there. Do I know it's there? Nope. All I know is someone said it is there. I see an official announcement and have the same thought. Someone said it's there. I don't know anything beyond someone said it was there. It might work out that way. It might not.
Sometimes I may not even know what is supposedly there. Given the vague wording and phrasing frequently thrown around.
Which destination does the above lead us to? A game is approaching release, an update or addition is in the pipe, a target date is set, a statement is made, whatever it may be. Pull out that little paper with words of wisdom written on it from the back pocket. "Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see". It "happens" when it's witnessed and confirmed to be there. Not a moment before. The source is irrelevant. Leak, rumor, official source. They're all held to the same barometer.
Here is the kicker. When it comes to free additions it's not such a big deal. It's already been paid for. What about purchasing decisions? What happens if nobody takes the proverbial leap of faith?
This is the heart and soul of internet media. No checks or balances. No responsibility. No accountability. If I open up a media channel, make up total nonsense, and get millions of clicks and subscribers...I'm now a major player in the online media industry...and there's absolutely no authority that can shut down my complete and utter drivel, unless I happen to cross a line with copyright infringement, slander or libel, etc. Aside from that, I'm just "expressing my opinion for entertainment purposes".
Conversely, a proper media network (television newstations, radio, periodical publications, etc.), which are businesses that are incorporated, are held to very different standards. Even tabloids are not permitted to simply spout lies -- they have to be able to back their wild stories up with at least some verifiable evidence. And pretty much everyone knows what they're reading if they pick up a tabloid.
But, the media is not social media. Social media is too new, too big, and grew too quickly. Neither the content nor the technology it utilizes is effectively governed by any sort of law and order. Hence, it's total chaos.
In a sense, that leaves people with a real taste of true and total "freedom". This is what freedom actually means. There are no rules...no regulations...but there's also no structure and support from any authority to help people out if others are malicious, fraudulent, or incompetent. Anyone can take full advantage of them at any point, and if they're not able to fend for themselves, tough luck. That's nature's law. Nature doesn't care. "Right" and "wrong" can sit and spin. Nature goes:
Cause ---> Effect
Conclusion.
Eventually, there will be regulations and accountability, but those days are a ways off yet. Until such time, people need to learn how to survive in the wild, or they're simply food for the predators.
Last edited:
Eh, I don't know about that. That was the intended point. The discussion is, in part, comparing and contrasting official and unofficial sources of information. Unofficial sources are.... unofficial. They should be taken with a hefty grain of salt. However, history has shown official sources should be taken with a hefty grain of salt too.
Official sources were painting the game to be on track and polished. Unofficial sources were painting the game to be underdeveloped, plagued with internal issues and bugs. Which source turned out to be more reliable? Why do people trust the leaks more than the official information?
I don't think people trust the leaks, it's just the only "news" available at the moment, so at least it's something to talk about, I guess? I mean, what about the articels from yesterday about a new update apparently being imminent? Reported on by reputable media sources, but of course still not from an official source.
But given CDPR's continuing silence, I'm not suprised people are grasping at straws.
But given CDPR's continuing silence, I'm not suprised people are grasping at straws.