Support NeoGAF

[toddhunter]

What makes you think W3 will be like DA:I?

Because all modern big budget games are being pulled towards a singularity.

Also all the quests in TW2.

 

[thuGG_pl]

Because all modern big budget games are being pulled towards a singularity.

Also all the quests in TW2.

And you choose to ignore the early impressions from the game that came out lately?

 

[cheezcake]

Because all modern big budget games are being pulled towards a singularity.

Also all the quests in TW2.

Wut, how are TW2 quests anything remotely like DA:I quests.

 

[Daverid]

I made a 3 sentence post where I said that I simply dont like the way CD Project handled this in comparison to previous articles that were specifically mentioning the issue of paid content and neglected to refer in any way to expansions

Downplay it all you want, it doesn't make your previous statements any less ridiculous.

Spoiler

Also I'm Australian, so trust me I was only mildly annoyed when writing that post. An actually angry post from me would be far more obvious, and would probably get me banned.

 

[erawsd]

But this is how DLC has been done. For years now.

Why did they even imply that they had a different approach?

Because most others charge for any and all DLC? whether its Horse Armor, charater skins, or 4 hour side mission.

CDPR's is giving away the all cosmetics, small quests, and items for free. However, they will charge money for very significant chunks of content.

There is a clear difference there.

 

[P44]

Let me say it one more time, because seriously this is getting old and I am tired of wasting so much time for shit like this.

It is not the price. I have paid DLC that were much worse than this. It is the fact that CDP seems to manipulate the whole DLC/Expansion thing however it makes them sound better.

Also and ffs honestly, I do understand that 30 hours of content have to be planned beforehand, thing is, to me it sounds like a turn off when you announce it before the game is released.

And I have said so not just for CDP but for most games out there, even though I went and eventually bought the DLC for them. It just doesnt click with me. I dont want to hear about extra payable content before I have even tasted the main dish. It like ordering a steak and then the waiter telling me that in 30 mins I can have a sauce for a price, that will make the dish that much more enjoyable. Perhaps the example aint that great, but whatever, enough time wasted on this.

I'd ask then if you played TW2; they did the same thing there, free DLC but critically all DLC was small (on order of 4-5 hours max). When they said free DLC's, that is what most people thought of - and hell, most realistic people too. No company is going to give you some chunky 30 hour DLC for free. It's bad business. Call it a manipulation, but I don't think most people were seeing them as promising an epic expansion. So when the expansions are announced, most people can separate the two fairly easily.

To be honest, if they didn't announce now, you'd hear it a week after release in some post release interview. Perhaps not a formal announcement with direct details but some kind of answer - the time it comes is completely irrelevant. Your example is flawed as all hell - this isn't supposed to make the base game better, it's just more content to go through. If they were saying, in six months we'll add a new major combat mechanic or something that's very different, that would pretty fundamentally change the game. This is literally just more content, based off of side stories and things.

Your reasoning just seems to be based off of you not being comfortable with anybody announcing post-launch dlc before release, I'm going to be honest. You're not really considering the context.

 

[Chao]

All I can picture when I learn about dlc for a game that hasn't been released yet is a group of corporate scumbags thinking of ways to steal money from customers in front of a whiteboard, drawing arrows and writing dates. "we will skip this part and we will make a dlc out of it, we will take assets we already have, we will fill it with a stupid amount of padding and we will say it's an incredible value for the price".

And then designers and programmers looking at them thinking "I don't know man..., but I like having a job "

 

[FleckSplat]

All I can picture when I learn about dlc for a game that hasn't been released yet is a group of corporate scumbags thinking of ways to steal money from customers in front of a whiteboard, drawing arrows and writing dates. "we will skip this part and we will make a dlc out of it, we will take assets we already have, we will fill it with a stupid amount of padding and we will say it's an incredible value for the price".

And then designers and programmers looking at them thinking "I don't know man..., but I like having a job "

The bolded sounds like a failure of imagination - it's right in the OP's posted article. This is different.

I am reading a lot of perceptions and appearances and feelings about the way things are presented, rather than any logical basis for outrage on this issue, as usual.

 

[executor]

I was very happy to support witcher3 day1 expecially after CDPR revealed their "all DLC included" campaign last year.. But now I'll just wait the day a complete edition will come out or when the price will go so down that it's a steal.

 

[PastorOfMuppets]

You can really tell who here grew up on console gaming and who grew up on PC gaming based on the responses.

It used to be a really common practice in PC gaming for a developer to create a game and then push out an expansion that was from 1/2 to 2/3rds the size of the original game at 1/2 to 2/3rds the price. Games that sold really well often had multiple expansion packs - Command and Conquer and Civilization II are two good examples.

Sometimes, they would another developer would be authorized to do this. Gearbox making Half Life: Opposing Force and Synergistic Software making Diablo: Hellfire are two examples. Other times, a small developer would do an unauthorized expansion (never quite understood how they got around the legal barriers there) but most of them turned out to be pretty mediocre (Starcraft: Insurrection anyone?). Small things like cosmetic skins and map packs used to be given out for free. Unreal Tournament 2004 once released a massive DLC package that included new multiplayer modes, skins, maps and weapons for free because they did not feel like it was large enough to justify charging for it.

Anyways, CDP has has a record of acting like those PC companies of old with how they treat small DLC so I generally have more reason to trust them than say a company like Activision that they'll release an old school like expansion pack rather than a small side quest and town that you can complete in 5-10 hours tops (Mass Effect).

Some modern examples of games using the Expansion Pack model of old PC games from way back when:

• X-COM: Enemy Within
• Dragon Age: Origins - Awakenings - although it's a bad expansion pack IMO.
• Civilization 4 and 5. Good examples, they are basically considered incomplete if you play them in their original form.

Bite sized short side missions like Bioshock Infinite's Season Pass and the Mass Effec 3 DLC's are examples of a more modern approach which I've always felt was very nickel and dime-y in how it was sold to me.

 

[FleckSplat]

Well said.

 

[Denton]

Haha I just remembered that when Geralt was in Toussaint (book spoilers)

Spoiler

basically all the women there paid him to get rid of a succubus while all the men paid him not to get rid of it. And of course this makes me think of Regis

While reading the books I always hoped that Regis and Milva (and even Cahir and Angouleme) would appear in Witcher 3. But I always feared I already knew the reason they hadn't appeared already

There is a small chance that Regis could appear, I sure as hell hope he will.
The others...yeah probably not.
Maybe in flashback, but I don't think CDP will want to confuse people who didn't read with even more "unknown" characters.

 

[Altairre]

You can really tell who here grew up on console gaming and who grew up on PC gaming based on the responses.

It used to be a really common practice in PC gaming for a developer to create a game and then push out an expansion that was from 1/2 to 2/3rds the size of the original game at 1/2 to 2/3rds the price. Games that sold really well often had multiple expansion packs - Command and Conquer and Civilization II are two good examples.

Sometimes, they would another developer would be authorized to do this. Gearbox making Half Life: Opposing Force and Synergistic Software making Diablo: Hellfire are two examples. Other times, a small developer would do an unauthorized expansion (never quite understood how they got around the legal barriers there) but most of them turned out to be pretty mediocre (Starcraft: Insurrection anyone?). Small things like cosmetic skins and map packs used to be given out for free. Unreal Tournament 2004 once released a massive DLC package that included new multiplayer modes, skins, maps and weapons for free because they did not feel like it was large enough to justify charging for it.

Anyways, CDP has has a record of acting like those PC companies of old with how they treat small DLC so I generally have more reason to trust them than say a company like Activision that they'll release an old school like expansion pack rather than a small side quest and town that you can complete in 5-10 hours tops (Mass Effect).

Some modern examples of games using the Expansion Pack model of old PC games from way back when:

• X-COM: Enemy Within
• Dragon Age: Origins - Awakenings - although it's a bad expansion pack IMO.
• Civilization 4 and 5. Good examples, they are basically considered incomplete if you play them in their original form.

Bite sized short side missions like Bioshock Infinite's Season Pass and the Mass Effec 3 DLC's are examples of a more modern approach which I've always felt was very nickel and dime-y in how it was sold to me.

Well said, that is exactly what this looks like to me. I really liked Awakening though.

 

[funkystudent]

Well sir, should I assume you can't read?

"However, if we do a big adventure, say, 15 or 20 hours long, a very high production value story extention to the game - then we will probably charge for that. "

Quoting that again?

Go look at the Witcher 2 interviews and how much they shit on paid DLC then. They have been doing it for years and thats why people are taking this so personally.

Maybe if they made that once hinted at large paid expansion for W2 the fan base would have become accustomed to the idea instead we got countless interviews of staff shitting on the idea of paid DLC for over 5 years.


This is a mess of their own creation.

 

[Ikuu]

Go look at the Witcher 2 interviews and how much they shit on paid DLC then. They have been doing it for years and thats why people are taking this so personally.

Like this one? http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/the-witcher-2-dlc-wont-cost-you-a-dime-but-expansi/1100-3203/

 

[JetSetRadio]

At least I got the game dirt cheap, might grab this dlc from a sale if I like the game.

 

[jesu]

Quoting that again?

Go look at the Witcher 2 interviews and how much they shit on paid DLC then. They have been doing it for years and thats why people are taking this so personally.

Maybe if they made that once hinted at large paid expansion for W2 the fan base would have become accustomed to the idea instead we got countless interviews of staff shitting on the idea of paid DLC for over 5 years.


This is a mess of their own creation.

2011, paid expansions are mentioned.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/27/which-witcher-is-the-witcher-2-2-0/

Anyway, our approach is different and relatively simple. All DLC for the PC version is and will remain FREE. That’s not likely to be the story for the Xbox version, because of certain Microsoft policies that need to be followed. But on PC, once you buy our game, you don’t need to worry about any additional costs – we will provide all updates, including those featuring new content, for free. I think it’s reasonable than when you buy our product, you can expect us to service it for you quite a long time after release, though less intensively as time goes by. Any payable DLC that appears is likely to be a more classic expansion pack along the lines of, say, Baldur’s Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast. But this is a purely theoretical discussion at this point, as we have yet to confirm or even plan any official expansion packs

 

[thuGG_pl]

Quoting that again?

Go look at the Witcher 2 interviews and how much they shit on paid DLC then. They have been doing it for years and thats why people are taking this so personally.

Maybe if they made that once hinted at large paid expansion for W2 the fan base would have become accustomed to the idea instead we got countless interviews of staff shitting on the idea of paid DLC for over 5 years.


This is a mess of their own creation.

Like this one? http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/the-witcher-2-dlc-wont-cost-you-a-dime-but-expansi/1100-3203/

Exact quote:
"The implication is that if we’re going to go ahead and charge for something, it’ll be significant content akin to the expansion packs of yesteryear,"


So how about that?

 

[funkystudent]

Like this one? http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/the-witcher-2-dlc-wont-cost-you-a-dime-but-expansi/1100-3203/

2011, paid expansions are mentioned.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/27/which-witcher-is-the-witcher-2-2-0/

Like I said.

Maybe if they made that once hinted at large paid expansion for W2 the fan base would have become accustomed to the idea instead we got countless interviews of staff shitting on the idea of paid DLC for over 5 years.

Its not hard to find numerous comments / interviews from Project Red staff over the years poo pooing DLC versus the one or two times they hinted at maybe doing paid expansions one day.

 

[ps3ud0]

Declaring Witcher 3 would have all DLC free and then seperating the DLC/expansions qualifiers so that their first public statement regards post-release support was still valid, is a very much a douche move.

CDPR just arent who they were and I feel they are playing up to their audience - principles never last. I have no issue paying for decent DLC, but lets call a spade a spade...

ps3ud0 8)

 

[Denton]

Moving goalposts is all the rage I see.

 

[NaDannMaGoGo]

Yeh you wouldn't get 2 proper expansions for 25$.

It's just CDPR marketing doing its thing again. Of course, after all the previous claims they've made they cannot call it DLC, so they call it expansions.

On the one hand I'm in favor of good games over bad ones, so if The Witcher 3 turns out fantastically, great.

However, if it doesn't turn out to be good then I'm just as happy if that means people treat CDPR's marketing bullshit with the critical eye they want to avert currently.

 

[Nordicus]

Also, people going "Bu- bu- bu- Witcher 2 Enhanced Edition!"* are forgetting that the free upgrade released with the Xbox 360 version, an alternate source of revenue that could keep Witcher 2 devs busy for a little while longer.

While it wouldn't have been a complete (though somewhat) dick move to charge for the additions, people who bought the game's original version on PC could have seen paying for the EE enhancements as CDProjektRED giving Xbox 360 players preferential treatment.

* I really do not like making mocking quotes like that but god damn I have limits

 

[Daverid]

Its not hard to find numerous comments / interviews from Project Red staff over the years poo pooing DLC versus the one or two times they hinted at maybe doing paid expansions one day.

Well if it's not that hard to find, then by all means, post away.

There could actually be some kind of legitimacy and debate to the discussion if you actually posted proof of what you claim, but as of right now you just look like a complete fool.

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

Are people still salty? It's $25..that's not much at all...don't like it then don't get it. If $25 is too expensive then you're in the wrong hobby.

 

[NaDannMaGoGo]

Are people still salty? It's $25..that's not much at all...don't like it then don't get it. If $25 is too expensive then you're in the wrong hobby.

You're correct. 25$ is in fact a ludicrously low price for two proper expansions of a full priced title. Considering that and what the content actually seems to be, it sounds like a normal DLC sized content. Why not call it DLC? Well...

 

[tuxfool]

Yep thats it right there. The definition of semantics. Thanks for actual proof.

Also, kind of "weird" (to say the least...) that 1 month before the game is released you are being informed about "expansions" and 30 (THIRTY) hours worth of gameplay....

They havent released the game yet they have already planned another 30 hours of content?

Sorry but that sounds poor to me. You can defend this all you want, it still sounds shitty to me.

The least they could do, is announce that they have 30 more hours of payable content planned, 2-3 months after the game's release...



My point is, that they should at least have mentioned SOMETHING about ex[ansions there, shouldnt they? But they obviously didnt, because that "16 free DLC" tagline sounds way to good to be spoiled by something like this...

Seems like you have never heard of expansions before? Is this your first exposure to it, they used to be very common in PC games. This has been their position for years, it was their position for W2 as well, despite the fact that they didn't release an expansion.

Given that they are content complete since January, you somehow expect half the team to twiddle their thumbs doing nothing waiting for the game to release.

 

[thuGG_pl]

Declaring Witcher 3 would have all DLC free and then seperating the DLC/expansions qualifiers so that their first public statement regards post-release support was still valid, is a very much a douche move.

CDPR just arent who they were and I feel they are playing up to their audience - principles never last. I have no issue paying for decent DLC, but lets call a spade a spade...

ps3ud0 8)

They separated it four fucking years ago.

 

[tuxfool]

Well if it's not that hard to find, then by all means, post away.

There could actually be some kind of legitimacy and debate to the discussion if you actually posted proof of what you claim, but as of right now you just look like a complete fool.

In his post there are two of such statements right away.

 

[texhnolyze]

You're correct. 25$ is in fact a ludicrously low price for two proper expansions of a full priced title. Considering that and what the content actually seems to be, it sounds like a normal DLC sized content. Why not call it DLC? Well...

Because CDPR is a PC-oriented dev and in PC world expansion is a common thing to define a huge-sized "DLC".
You can't download additional content back then, so PC "DLC" are called expansion and shipped in retails.

 

[NotUS]

You can really tell who here grew up on console gaming and who grew up on PC gaming based on the responses.

It used to be a really common practice in PC gaming for a developer to create a game and then push out an expansion that was from 1/2 to 2/3rds the size of the original game at 1/2 to 2/3rds the price. Games that sold really well often had multiple expansion packs - Command and Conquer and Civilization II are two good examples.

Sometimes, they would another developer would be authorized to do this. Gearbox making Half Life: Opposing Force and Synergistic Software making Diablo: Hellfire are two examples. Other times, a small developer would do an unauthorized expansion (never quite understood how they got around the legal barriers there) but most of them turned out to be pretty mediocre (Starcraft: Insurrection anyone?). Small things like cosmetic skins and map packs used to be given out for free. Unreal Tournament 2004 once released a massive DLC package that included new multiplayer modes, skins, maps and weapons for free because they did not feel like it was large enough to justify charging for it.

Anyways, CDP has has a record of acting like those PC companies of old with how they treat small DLC so I generally have more reason to trust them than say a company like Activision that they'll release an old school like expansion pack rather than a small side quest and town that you can complete in 5-10 hours tops (Mass Effect).

Some modern examples of games using the Expansion Pack model of old PC games from way back when:

• X-COM: Enemy Within
• Dragon Age: Origins - Awakenings - although it's a bad expansion pack IMO.
• Civilization 4 and 5. Good examples, they are basically considered incomplete if you play them in their original form.

Bite sized short side missions like Bioshock Infinite's Season Pass and the Mass Effec 3 DLC's are examples of a more modern approach which I've always felt was very nickel and dime-y in how it was sold to me.

Thank you, these are proper sizable expansion packs releasing well after the main game release.

The expansion pack content is not finished, its new content being worked on, not cut from the main game. This is how it used to be done.

In relative terms, you will get more game-play in this expansion pack than 'Shadowfall/The Order/Ryse/Sunset Overdrive' combined. Seems like good value to me.

 

[Daverid]

In his post there are two of such statements right away.

Those links are disproving the point he's trying to make.

 

[Nordicus]

You're correct. 25$ is in fact a ludicrously low price for two proper expansions of a full priced title. Considering that and what the content actually seems to be, it sounds like a normal DLC sized content. Why not call it DLC? Well...

The thing is, what does "DLC sized content" even mean?

You got stuff that can be called "microtransactions" "add-ons" "expansions", even "stand-alone expansions" which are basically just slightly smaller games using an older engine. Every single one of these can be labelled DLC if we go by basic definition. Shit, look at your entire Steam/GOG/other collection. Almost entirely DLC with exception of registered retail products maybe.

CDProjekt wants to make a statement about the size of the content, and in case they're not inflating numbers with needless faffing about in the new environments, I would not at least call the second one DLC sized add-on sized.

 

[funkystudent]

Well if it's not that hard to find, then by all means, post away.

There could actually be some kind of legitimacy and debate to the discussion if you actually posted proof of what you claim, but as of right now you just look like a complete fool.

Well for one.

http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/witcher-2-devs-industry-trending-overexploiting-gamers/

"“I also think it was a very bold statement for us in terms of respecting the fan base,” Iwinski said. “A lot of companies would put that in and be like, ‘Hey, that’s perfect for an expansion set. Charge 20 bucks, more revenue!’ But that’s not our way, we like it like this. ”"

Its the DLC versus Expansion difference thats biting them in the ass. Its the kind of spin you would expect from a Microsoft or EA executive. Ultimately it comes across as basically saying "ALL DLC WILL BE FREE!!! ARENT WE THE BEST!!! (expect for this DLC over here)".

They should have been more cartful on that high horse of theirs.


Edit. First on a new page? Well Bugger. Ill be ripped apart for the next 50 posts.

Anyway I have no problem with this paid DLC. It sounds like its pretty big compared to say... your normal $15 / 5 hour Bioware add on but my point still stands that maybe they should have been more careful patting themselves on the back over the years.

 

[kraspkibble]

£20 for 30 hours of content? wow. I've played more than a few games with less than 20 hours and payed as much as £40-50.

If my PC can handle The Witcher 3 at a decent quality then I will for sure be buying this DLC.

 

[NaDannMaGoGo]

Because CDPR is a PC-oriented dev and in PC world expansion is a common thing to define a huge-sized "DLC".
You can't download additional content back then, so PC "DLC" are called expansion and shipped in retails.

Oh tell more about these ancient artifacts known as expansions and add-ons. As a PC gamer that's been playing plenty of Blizzard titles I couldn't possible have heard about them yet!

My point was the price in comparison to content in the first place. The vast majority of expansions actually contain not only significant content additions but also plenty gamedesign tweaks. Look at pretty much every Blizzard game expansion (Starcraft 1 and onwards at least).

Now fair enough, even if it isn't as much, you can still call it expansion. But it's that CDPR specifically called out other devs/industry practices concerning DLC and whatnot and then announce smaller sized expansions, two that is, before release. These 'expansions' are only named as such because of their previous PR statements, certainly not because of their size (although they even have the audacity of claiming just that).

25$ for two full sized expansions on release (or even pre-order lmao) is simply something I cannot take seriously. Imagine SC2: HotS and D3:RoS being up for dual pre-order for 25$.

 

[His Majesty]

Like I said.



Its not hard to find numerous comments / interviews from Project Red staff over the years poo pooing DLC versus the one or two times they hinted at maybe doing paid expansions one day.

2013: CD Projekt RED: The Witcher 3 Will Not Get Any Paid DLC

http://news.softpedia.com/news/CD-Projekt-RED-The-Witcher-3-Will-Not-Get-Any-Paid-DLC-371896.shtml

The developer adds, “We believe patches, fixes and additional content should be provided to gamers free of charge. Only something really big, and something that will not make you feel ripped off, justifies a price tag.”

2015: The Witcher 3 Dev On Making A Stand Against Paid DLC

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/01...+twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

“Yeah, we are making a statement,” he added. “We, as gamers, would like to be treated this way, 'Hey, give me free DLC.' It doesn't have to be something huge. And I'm saying we aren't giving out huge stuff, we aren't giving tens of hours of storyline here, we are giving small bits of pieces that don't cost a lot.

If you are unable to recognize the common theme in these quotes, then that is really on you. In nearly every interview about paid DLC, they have said that they would charge for larger expansions. People here are twisting their words and making this a case of semantics to accuse them of hypocrisy and lying. It's disgusting.

 

[tuxfool]

Those links are disproving the point he's trying to make.

ah yes, you're right, It is getting hard to tell.

 

[Later Alligator]

Yeh you wouldn't get 2 proper expansions for 25$.

It's just CDPR marketing doing its thing again. Of course, after all the previous claims they've made they cannot call it DLC, so they call it expansions.

On the one hand I'm in favor of good games over bad ones, so if The Witcher 3 turns out fantastically, great.

However, if it doesn't turn out to be good then I'm just as happy if that means people treat CDPR's marketing bullshit with the critical eye they want to avert currently.

this is coming from someone who has never played a witcher game, and the witcher 3 will be my first. so im neither biased for nor against them (though i do hope it's a good game)

i agree with them trying to differentiate between standard microtransaction bullshit and proper DLC. for 2 extremes:

Good:
red dead redemption - undead nightmare. that is a full expansion and well worth the asking price

Bad:
Oblivion Horse Armor
anything made by EA in the past 5 years

There is a very clear difference in value/quality between the two, and by all accounts they are aiming to provide the same type of value as a proper expansion so i'm all for it.

maybe their comments wouldn't be taken so off base if they had specifically targetted micro transactions in their previous comments rather then dlc as a whole, which when done right, can be a good thing

 

[Bedlam]

When will developers learn to not announce DLC passes well before release.

Yeah, I'm not too worried about the value proposition given the kind of dev that CD Project is but a DLC/expansion announcement prior to the release of the main game still bums me out. At least wait until we are playing the game and lust for more content.

 

[Rosur]

They should of released this as a Standalone or a proper expansion and not talked about it until after the game had been released...

 

[tuxfool]

Now fair enough, even if it isn't as much, you can still call it expansion. But it's that CDPR specifically called out other devs/industry practices concerning DLC and whatnot and then announce smaller sized expansions, two that is, before release. These 'expansions' are only named as such because of their previous PR statements, certainly not because of their size (although they even have the audacity of claiming just that). .

That is because others charge for what they have defined as DLC. Every time they make such statements, they have defined what they consider DLC and what they do not. It isn't their fault people can't seem to read.

 

[Daverid]

Well for one.

http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/witcher-2-devs-industry-trending-overexploiting-gamers/

"“I also think it was a very bold statement for us in terms of respecting the fan base,” Iwinski said. “A lot of companies would put that in and be like, ‘Hey, that’s perfect for an expansion set. Charge 20 bucks, more revenue!’ But that’s not our way, we like it like this. ”"

Its the DLC versus Expansion difference thats biting them in the ass. Its the kind of spin you would expect from a Microsoft or EA executive. Ultimately it comes across as basically saying "ALL DLC WILL BE FREE!!! ARENT WE THE BEST!!! (expect for this DLC over here)".

They should have been more cartful on that high horse of theirs.

Marcin is referring to The Witcher 2's split act and stating that other Publishers would exploit their consumers by cutting one "path" out and adding it back in later as a paid Expansion/DLC. He's not "poo pooing" DLC/Expansions, but in-fact just pointing out that obvious exploitation of consumers is something CDPR will never do.

Is it really that hard to comprehend the statement made in the article? You're really, really reaching here.

 

[Xion_Stellar]

Well for one.

http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/witcher-2-devs-industry-trending-overexploiting-gamers/

"“I also think it was a very bold statement for us in terms of respecting the fan base,” Iwinski said. “A lot of companies would put that in and be like, ‘Hey, that’s perfect for an expansion set. Charge 20 bucks, more revenue!’ But that’s not our way, we like it like this. ”"

Its the DLC versus Expansion difference thats biting them in the ass. Its the kind of spin you would expect from a Microsoft or EA executive. Ultimately it comes across as basically saying "ALL DLC WILL BE FREE!!! ARENT WE THE BEST!!! (expect for this DLC over here)".

They should have been more cartful on that high horse of theirs.

This is what I was saying in my previous that regardless of CDPR's own definition and stance on the difference between DLC & Expansion their believe does not dictate or change how the market perceive/view something as DLC. Especially within the console space (less so on PC) there's no difference between the 2 anymore in a general sense.

 

[Nordicus]

Well for one.

http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/witcher-2-devs-industry-trending-overexploiting-gamers/

"“I also think it was a very bold statement for us in terms of respecting the fan base,” Iwinski said. “A lot of companies would put that in and be like, ‘Hey, that’s perfect for an expansion set. Charge 20 bucks, more revenue!’ But that’s not our way, we like it like this. ”"

That article is quoting the original interview on Gamasutra. The full context is about companies wanting to cut out significant important parts of the main game to charge for it as DLC. The example used is the Iorveth vs Roche choice.

You mentioned that [Roche vs Iorveth branching story] was an experiment for you. Was it a success? Was there anything about it that didn't go as planned?

AB: For sure it was a success, but probably half of our players didn't even realize that they can choose totally different paths.

MI: And that's actually something we could improve in terms of communicating with the player -- telling them that there is such an option in the story. There were so many people who only found out about the choice over the internet or by their friends, or they never found out at all. So in that case, you can say that all the work we put into that other area of the game went to waste for those players.

AB: But we don't want to tell people, "Okay, this is a special moment where you have to make a choice," or you'll lose something. In Act 1, we had a few of those moments, but maybe we could do it a bit differently.

MI: I think we didn't successfully communicate it. To make it a more appealing feature for players, we didn't make it visible enough.

AB: But I don't know how we can communicate that without spoiling things or destroying the immersion. It's very tough, but that's why it was an experiment.

MPG: Everything is about choices and consequence. For us, it was natural, because we had Iorveth and Roche, two strong NPCs, and if you stand against one of them, you should get a different story.

MI: I also think it was a very bold statement for us in terms of respecting the fan base. A lot of companies would put that in and be like, "Hey, that's perfect for an expansion set. Charge 20 bucks, more revenue!" But that's not our way, we like it like this. You can be sure to expect more experiments from us. (Laughs)

 

[tuxfool]

This is what I was saying in my previous that regardless of CDPR's own definition and stance on the difference between DLC & Expansion their believe does not dictate or change how the market perceive/view something as DLC. Especially within the console space (less so on PC) there's no difference between the 2 anymore in a general sense.

That is great and all. What other language could they have used to differentiate beyond actually defining what their stance is? Because DLC is an amorphous definition they have often clarified what they consider "DLC".

Would it have been better for them to invent new terms completely?

 

[Xion_Stellar]

That is great and all. What other language could they have used to differentiate beyond actually defining what their stance is? Because DLC is an amorphous definition they have often clarified what they consider "DLC".

Would it have been better for them to invent new terms completely?

Their best option would have been to keep their mouths shut but obviously it's too late for that now so now they have to deal with the consequences.

 

[Steez]

This is what I was saying in my previous that regardless of CDPR's own definition and stance on the difference between DLC & Expansion their believe does not dictate or change how the market perceive/view something as DLC. Especially within the console space (less so on PC) there's no difference between the 2 anymore in a general sense.

This is not on CDPR. This is on people who can't read.

It doesn't get much clearer than clearly stating what they mean over the course of several years.

 

[Denton]

Their best option would have been to keep their mouths shut but obviously it's too late for that now so now they have to deal with the consequences.

Indeed, they should have said no comment about everything every time anyone asks them about anything.

 

[tuxfool]

Their best option would have been to keep their mouths shut but obviously it's too late for that now so now they have to deal with the consequences.

Honestly I don't think most people care. This is such a minor huff and puff and will be generally forgotten by the time their next game releases.

They have been generally consistent in their viewpoints over the years, and have communicated them clearly. Nobody can accuse them of lying.