The Witcher 1&2 Remakes?

+

The Witcher 1 & 2 Remakes?

  • Yes I would love TW1&2 remastered Edition for PS4 and XboxOne

    Votes: 213 47.2%
  • No I don't want this (please specify why)

    Votes: 116 25.7%
  • A remake for all platforms.

    Votes: 122 27.1%

  • Total voters
    451
Wouldn't hold my breath, they tried it once and it didn't go to well due to financial problems and the fact that the project was passed on to another dev which was never seen through. Now, they could probably do it themselves now since they have more experience with consoles than when TW1 came out. But I don't see it happening TBH. They seem to be looking forward to release TW3 and moving on to Cyberpunk at this point.
 
Best chance I see is a community project, which I am sure, if the quality fits might even be supported by the REDs.
 
They wouldn't necessarily have to remake them for me to play them since I'm comfortable with the way they look graphic wise. Just a remastering would be nice.
 
I see no point in remaking them, CDPR is working on W3 and CP2077 and once they're done with that, well, goodbye social life. :p
And I still play the second one, it's awesome and it doesn't need a remake (the same goes for the first one as well).
 
The Witcher I & II Remake with Wild Hunt's Engine

That could be a Dream Come true, mostly the First game of the series, but don't know if you REDs are planning it or not.

What do you thing about it?
 
No! No! No! no remake, wasted resources and time... i want new games from CDPR, instead of wasting years for useless remakes...
 
Actually Sneky, that's a misconception. It's more likely that a small team would be working on the remake, since it wouldn't require a whole story, voice overs, or anything like that. Thus, CDPR could theoretically remake the series without it delaying any new games. It's not like they would have to focus their core development team away from new projects in order to remake this.

Remember, new features and things like remakes do NOT have to infringe upon other features/projects, the trade-off here would mostly be cost for CDPR, which means that it would only be feasible for them to do a remake if they thought they could at least break even, if not profit on it.
 
Any cost is a trade off, since CDPR could use that money in advancing their current technology. For example they can hire more professional developers to port REDengine to more platforms and so on.
 
Assuming that they are using a defined amount of money, as if to say there is a single pot used for all things, and any money spent must have been taken from that pot. What makes this notion a misconception is that CDPR has publishers. Here's a quick example of what I mean:

Publisher has 500,000,000 to spend on games (total for the year)
CDPR gets 150,000,000 to spend on Witcher 3
350,000,000 is left which could go to anything, CDPR could convince the publisher that a remake will be profitable and thus get 25,000,000 for remake
There is still 325,000,000 left (not purely for CDPR of course, it's there for any company that can convince them to publish)

If the remake is profitable, both CDPR and the publisher have even more money to spend on games, this is why we see things like the Halo Master Chief collection, because remakes are a relatively cheap way to profit.

That said, I don't believe a full remake is necessary, just some updates (at least for The Witcher 2). I'm just saying you shouldn't look at everything that isn't important to you as if it's going to impact what is important to you. Too often I see people take a stand against ideas that will likely not impact them because they fear it somehow will impact them. If we were talking about making an entire game from scratch with a big budget you guys would be completely correct, but a remake using an existing engine would not be large enough to impact development of new games.
 
Last edited:
Really? I actually didn't know that lol

My earlier post may actually be wrong then

- - - Update - - -

Scratch what I said earlier, looks like reptilePZ is correct. I still maintain that CDPR could achieve it without hindering the development of newer games since I don't believe the cost would be that high, but the concerns about the trade off are now entirely valid lol

Ty for that correction ReptilePZ!
 
Well I figured their publisher logically saw the player retention and PR value in their strategy...shit, looks like I just overestimated the intelligence of publishers. Momentary lapse in judgement on my part
 
Last edited:
It's not the first time I encounter this confusion for the term "publisher". Someone should come up with a better defined term. Publisher can either mean those who fund the development (and in return get the ownership), or simply partners who "publish" (i.e. print) physical media for the game (and the same company is usually in charge of retail distribution and getting a percentage of retail sales), but they don't get any ownership.

So it's easy to confuse the two when all you see is that game X is developed by studio Y and published by Z. In such case I usually check what "publisher" means in that context.
 
Last edited:
It's not the first time I encounter this confusion for the term "publisher". Someone should come up with a better defined term. Publisher can either mean those who fund the development (and in return get the ownership), or simply partners who "publish" (i.e. print) physical media for the game (and the same company is usually in charge of retail distribution and getting a percentage of retail sales), but they don't get any ownership.

The term exists (distributor), but the problem is that so many people are used to "distributor" meaning "publisher" that a lot of news articles, websites, forum users ( :) ) interchange the two words.

I may be wrong, but I think that all of the press releases about CDPR's distribution partners used the correct word, but it often became transmuted to "publisher" by the media themselves, which is why it's a common mistake.

And I don't know if it's still the case, but back in the day when I worked for one, the company that physically makes the disks and, uuuh, "distributes" them to the retailer was called the "manufacturer". And they had no say on anything, they just did the work.
 
Top Bottom