949 réponses à ce sujet

[Morty Smith]

The 16 free pieces of DLC thing drives me nuts, as they are almost to a fault really minor pieces with very little resource demands. It's great they are giving them for free, but it is partially because they are on such a level it would be almost insane ask any money for them.

 

That announcement also ties in to the general problem here, because when CDPR told about them, they specifically said that they felt all DLC should be free, which is such a direct hit at other companies. Which is why the insane semantic discussion of DLC vs Expansion has risen to such a prominance.

 

Could you post a quote?

 

I´ve got this one:

 

“We love games. We love collecting them, playing them, and everything connected to that experience. Every time we reach out for a new release, we expect to be taken care of. We expect support if we encounter any problems, we love updates constantly improving the experience, and we feel really special when we receive free content that gives us more than we initially paid for. It doesn’t have to be huge, it can be an awesome skin for a character, or an extra sword, or armor.

Unfortunately this treatment is quite rare these days. As gamers, we nowadays have to hold on tight to our wallets, as surprisingly right after release, lots of tiny pieces of tempting content materialize with a steep price tag attached. Haven’t we just paid a lot of cash for a brand new game?

As CD PROJEKT RED, we strongly believe this is not the way it should work and, with The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, we have decided to do it differently. Cutting to the chase, everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform. You don’t have to pre-order, you don’t have to buy any special edition to get them -- if you own a copy of Wild Hunt, they’re yours. This is our way of saying thank you for buying our game.”

 

or don´t reply, it´s also an answer.

[Sanunes]

 

And these are the PAID DLCs which are the equivllent to the Free DLCs for TW3

 

These items are available on the Cerberus Network for purchase, however the Cerberus Network is not required to obtain them.

• Alternate Appearance Pack 1 (160 BioWare Points/$1.99 USD)
• Equalizer Pack (160 BioWare Points/$1.99 USD)
• Aegis Pack (160 BioWare Points/$1.99 USD)
• Firepower Pack (160 BioWare Points/$1.99 USD)
• Terminus Pack ($1.99 USD)
• Recon Operations Pack ($1.99 USD)
• N7 Complete Arsenal Bundle ($7.99 USD)
• Alternate Appearance Pack 2 (160 BioWare Points/$1.99 USD)

 

 

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  BioWare gave a free DLC with a bunch of little content for free with the game before CDPR did it with The Witcher 3.  We don't know what the content for The Witcher 3 is going to be and at the end it might have the same amount of content as The Cerberus Network for it is an unknown.

[LinksOcarina]

1) Okay, call it what you want DLC/Expansions/Extra Content/Bonus Content whatever. The point is that CDPR is going to release two substantial story DLCs that will when combined, total around 30 hours of gameplay. The first DLC being release in October and the other early 2016.

 

2) The free DLC for Witcher 3 are not story DLC but appearance/weapon packs. When Bioware released appearance/weapon packs for Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, they WERENT all free and required a price. I had to purchase Bioware points in order to get the ME2 and ME3 appearance packs. CDPR is giving them to us for free. Again, how can someone be against this is beyond my comphresension. To me it just seems like Bioware fanboys trying to find some sort of counterargument to what CDPR is doing and trying to tilt it in a way where CDPR is actually going about it the wrong way and Bioware/EA is doing it the right way.

 

3) The difference is that these two DLC expansions have nothing to do with the core plot of Witcher 3, these are two separate stories that have their own plots and origins. An example would be Dragon Age: Awakening. It had NOTHING to do with the core storyline of Wardens hunting down the Archdemon to stop the blight. Instead it took place AFTER the game in which the blight was stopped and now there is a new threat that must be fought. So it isn't like CDPR is holding back content that should have been at release just so they can package it as DLC. These two expansions will tell their own story. Just like the two Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind Expansions told their own story.

 

And since you want to bring up the topic of withholding content to sell as DLC. Again, remember the From Ashes day 1 DLC for Mass Effect 3? Remember the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC for ME2 in which gamers found audio files on the ME2 disk that was from the Shadow Broker DLC.....WAY before the DLC was ever created? How do you defend that?

 

Simple, by design it was put on the disk and gated until it was complete. What you are talking about are specific files for planned dlc or incomplete work that was not finished on time. The rest of the content was downloadable, which made it complete and playable. 

 

This is how coding kind of works, from what I understand. I had someone explain it to me once; basically, they put files on the game disk for planned content, or unfinished content, mostly skins, voice and sound effects because it is less likely to bug out then when the code is attached through DLC. If it's planned, the goal is to have it "open up" when the content is complete, and you need the DLC to access it fully. If it is unfinished, it's more or less the same thing, but can possibly be abandoned or inaccessible unless if you mess with game files, which is easy to do. 

 

Not to mention you didn't really answer my question regarding why CD Projekt Red would get a pass announcing content before the release of the game, when BioWare didn't for doing the same thing. I remember the complaints about From Ashes because of that very misconception, and the fact that parts of it were found in the main code of the game, and BioWare basically saying the bulk of the development of From Ashes was after the title going gold, mainly the main mission in which you receive Javik and all of his dialogue scenes on the Normandy, which collaborates with what was found on the disk.

 

so yeah, simple deduction here, parts of the DLC are usually on disk or in game files to make transition from new content to old simple. Especially for consoles. That tells us nothing about the content plan other than that it was content planned, and either scrapped, which in the case of the Javik is likely because people didn't like the leaked script which made him more important than Shepard, if you remember, or planned which also collaborates with the DLC plan that BioWare used at the time.

 

Not saying CD Projekt Red is not doing the same thing, mind you, because it is certainly not underhanded. I am sure it's like BioWare, and it's either incomplete work or something they planned as DLC. But if we are really going to throw stones at one company over the other because of a perception issue, I think you need to clean your lens first because it's really the same thing if you ask me. 

 

Plus let's face it, the content for Mass Effect and Dragon Age had nothing to do with the core Plot of their games either. Even the DLC in Mass Effect 3, with the exception of Leviathan, was narrative changes to the game, not plot changes. Having Javik in your team doesn't change anything but perspective. If you expected otherwise, which seems like the biggest problem with people, well, I don't know what to tell you. 

 

But yeah, someone also covered the Cerberus Network already. Not to mention free multiplayer DLC since Mass Effect 3, which people overlook because...multiplayer I guess.

[Shechinah]

 

*snip*

 

 

According to the Wikipedia, only four pieces of the sixteen free DLC has been announced and is as following according to it; "Beard and Hairstyloe set", "Alternative Yennefer", "Temerian Armor" and "Witcher Contract; Missing Miners" which so far is superficial appearance DLC and what is possibly a cut questline.
 

Now I have not played the "Witcher 3" so perhaps you could inform me if any of the DLC currently add a new companion and the extent of the "Witcher Contract"-DLC because otherwise listing paid DLCs that of a different equivalence to each other is a bit difficult to serve as a comparison.

 

As an example; is "Witcher Contract" the same length as "Lair of the Shadow Broker", "Arrival" or "Overlord"? Does any of the superficial DLC add 3 different appearances for non-players, five helmets, four armors and five weapons like the "N7 Complete Arsenal Bundle"? Is there actually now an equivalent to "Genesis" in the free DLC which allows the player to set their choices in the previous games?

[Sanunes]

 

Spoiler

Could you post a quote?

 

I´ve got this one:

 

“We love games. We love collecting them, playing them, and everything connected to that experience. Every time we reach out for a new release, we expect to be taken care of. We expect support if we encounter any problems, we love updates constantly improving the experience, and we feel really special when we receive free content that gives us more than we initially paid for. It doesn’t have to be huge, it can be an awesome skin for a character, or an extra sword, or armor.

Unfortunately this treatment is quite rare these days. As gamers, we nowadays have to hold on tight to our wallets, as surprisingly right after release, lots of tiny pieces of tempting content materialize with a steep price tag attached. Haven’t we just paid a lot of cash for a brand new game?

As CD PROJEKT RED, we strongly believe this is not the way it should work and, with The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, we have decided to do it differently. Cutting to the chase, everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform. You don’t have to pre-order, you don’t have to buy any special edition to get them -- if you own a copy of Wild Hunt, they’re yours. This is our way of saying thank you for buying our game.”

 

or don´t reply, it´s also an answer.

 

I can see this being the interview people are using for the comments they made about all DLC should be free.

 

2012 Interview

 

Witcher 2 developer CD Projekt RED has stressed to VG247 that DLC should be viewed as a ‘post-sale service’ and therefore shouldn’t see any money changing hands.

 

CD Projekt RED’s Konrad Tomaszkiewicz explained why gamers shouldn’t be paying for post-release digital content, given their bite sized nature, “We’ve always believed in free DLCs. The thing is that we consider DLCs as a normal post sale service, which shouldn’t be priced. Back when retail games were dominant, we had expansion packs. These were really large chunks of content, which were worth their price.”

 

“If today’s DLCs offered the same amount of content,” Tomaszkiewicz continued, “they would be worth paying for, but in most cases players think they are overcharged for what they receive. That’s why we offer expansions to our game for free. This is also a way of saying “thank you” to the people who decided to buy our game instead of copying it from an unauthorised source.”

 

I can see the larger DLC from BioWare falling into what they consider expansions such as The Citadel DLC for Mass Effect 3 or the Jaws of Hakkor for Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

Edit: Fixed formatting errors.

Modifié par Sanunes, 24 mai 2015 - 04:04 .

[Shechinah]

My apologies, I realised we are distracting from the actual purpose of this thread and if we continue this, we should create a different thread rather than to derail from this one.   

[LinksOcarina]

 

Could you post a quote?

 

I´ve got this one:

 

“We love games. We love collecting them, playing them, and everything connected to that experience. Every time we reach out for a new release, we expect to be taken care of. We expect support if we encounter any problems, we love updates constantly improving the experience, and we feel really special when we receive free content that gives us more than we initially paid for. It doesn’t have to be huge, it can be an awesome skin for a character, or an extra sword, or armor.

Unfortunately this treatment is quite rare these days. As gamers, we nowadays have to hold on tight to our wallets, as surprisingly right after release, lots of tiny pieces of tempting content materialize with a steep price tag attached. Haven’t we just paid a lot of cash for a brand new game?

As CD PROJEKT RED, we strongly believe this is not the way it should work and, with The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, we have decided to do it differently. Cutting to the chase, everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform. You don’t have to pre-order, you don’t have to buy any special edition to get them -- if you own a copy of Wild Hunt, they’re yours. This is our way of saying thank you for buying our game.”

 

or don´t reply, it´s also an answer.

 

 

You posted the quote before.

 

Here is another that I know of.
 

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.

 

[Morty Smith]

I posted a quote from an interview before, the second is from their site pre-release.

 

Thanks for posting the quote. I see how that can raise eyebrows.

 

 

Edit: That´s a quote from the Witcher 2 release.

 

 

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.

 

http://www.pcgamer.c...ays-cd-projekt/

[Hiemoth]

You posted the quote before.

 

Here is another that I know of.

 

 

Those quotes and also the one Sanunes posted. There's also this Examiner quote:

 

“We could sell extra content to gamers ‘down the road,’ but we don’t believe in that. 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… If we ever decide to charge you for something, we think you will appreciate what you get in return.”

 

Even though they leave the door open for it in it, it is also insanely vague as it doesn't really specify at what point does it move from additional content that should be free to being REALLY big.

 

 Again, I have nothing against CDPR asking for money for their products, they should. What I have an issue is them doing it after so many years of openly shaming companies for asking money for DLC that they spent resources developing.

[In Exile]

Point is, CDPR is taking a approach to DLC that favors us the fans and not shareholder pockets. If you cheer against a policy that benefits the consumer then you are just a Bioware fanboy.

The Cerberua Network did not add 16 FREE DLC packs to ME2.

Remember the From Ashes DLC debacle?

I'm not seeing how free hair DLC or other cosmetic DLC is a favour rather than wool over my eyes to cover up the hand going for my pocket in the form of the expansion pass.

It's nice they have some free minor bits of armour or hair DLC and aren't going the horse armour way but let's not trip over ourselves in prostrating before them.

[LinksOcarina]

I posted a quote from an interview before, the second is from their site pre-release.

 

Thanks for posting the quote. I see how that can raise eyebrows.

 

 

Edit: That´s a quote from the Witcher 2 release.

 

 

 

http://www.pcgamer.c...ays-cd-projekt/

 

Yet it pretty clearly details their attitudes towards DLC, as a company it doesn't really matter what game it's from unless if their mandate officially changes, which is fine if it does, but considering most quotations from CD Projekt Red since then, it doesn't seem like idea has changed much. Your quote from before even reflected this too.

 

We can argue if they mean it or not, or have wiggle room to change their minds, which they obviously do, but fact of the matter is, this was the ideals presented for almost four years now from the company, so it's somewhat contradicting to see a game with two big expansions or DLC or whatever you want to call them, coming. 

[Hiemoth]

I have put a lot of hours into Witcher 3 and I have yet to walk into a town or village and see half-clothed women walking around. Again, weak argument.

 

Point is, okay, Witcher 3 does show, at certain points in the game, show (not the way you describe it as if every village has naked women walking around) female breast as well as some quick "shots" of the female genitalia. SO WHAT, I am sorry that it offends you. You make it seem like women in Witcher games are crawling on their knees naked with dog chains around their necks kissing the feet of men. Last time I checked, DAI featured female breast in the game but the SJWs aren't out attacking DAI.

 

Again, yes, TW3 features naked women. So does movies and many novels depicts the sexual aspects of women. So why when TW3, which is a game that is MEANT for adults to play, is all of a sudden "wrong"?

 

 

Also what about the EDI ******? What about Miranda's outfit? What about the all female race of Asari which are always sexualized? I mean, Bioware isn't exempt from sexualizing women either. 

 

The only difference is that in ME we can play as a strong non-sexualized female protagonist but in games like Witcher, we are limited to the one macho male. So therefore people turn a blind eye to when Bioware does stuff like that. Also in Witcher games, CDPR isn't afraid to show a little extra "skin" whereas Bioware kinda remains conservative like the underwear sex in Mass Effect 3. Either way again.....Bioware like ALL OTHER videogame developers sexualizes women in some way or another. So please do not act like this is exclusive to Witcher 3 and Bioware is so "above that". 

 

You keep moving the goal posts in this argument so much that it is pretty difficult to keep up with it.

 

First of all, I never spoke about having an issue with nudity, I don't quite get where you got that from. If you have an actual sex scene, sure I expect the characters presented sexually. My point was about the general visual presentation.

 

Second, my exact examples were of central female characters in TW games and how they all were presented in a very sexualized manner. Now despite me poiinting out that I didn't think Yennefer was that bad in it, you suddenly mention random people in villages instead of giving me a counter-example of a central female character, or preferably several, central female characters in the story who didn't have a sexualized visual design. Did you feel those people in the villages were central to the story and cinematic interactions? That's the only way I can figure out your point here.

 

Third, finally valid points to the discussion by the ME examples, except those were also points of discussion. I didn't have personally an issue with them due to the continuous nature of my argument and DA2 comparison. They weren't the only examples of female presentation for central characters in those games and even with both EDI and Miranda, there were actual reasons given to at least attempt to justify those depictions, although I continue to be a bit iffy about EDI. As for Asari, true, but you do actually notice that there are actually completely clothed Asari in the game and ME games don't show every powerful Asari as a sexualized object? And by the way, I love how you didn't choose to focus on DA games in this argument.

 

Fourth, I don't think most people arguing have an issue with CDPR not being afraid to show some skin, the problem is that almost all their central female characters show skin and are presented in a sexualized manner, with those who don't being the exception to the rule. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

 

Fifth, sure, most companies have difficulties with this matter. Hence the pushback and calls to look at that visual design. Why do you feel it shouldn't be done? Why do you feel calling out CDPR of their visual presentation in this matter shouldn't be done?

[Hiemoth]

Yet it pretty clearly details their attitudes towards DLC, as a company it doesn't really matter what game it's from unless if their mandate officially changes, which is fine if it does, but considering most quotations from CD Projekt Red since then, it doesn't seem like idea has changed much. Your quote from before even reflected this too.

 

We can argue if they mean it or not, or have wiggle room to change their minds, which they obviously do, but fact of the matter is, this was the ideals presented for almost four years now from the company, so it's somewhat contradicting to see a game with two big expansions or DLC or whatever you want to call them, coming. 

 

Besides they made almost verbatim similar statements at the beginning of this year. This is a statement from January this year.

 

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. And I think people would feel better about our game, and, so, they will enjoy the adventure even more.

 

“And maybe the ones who thought about pirating would not pirate it,” Iwiński added. “Maybe the ones who wanted to trade it back and get something else will keep it on the shelf. That'd be great, I would like this to happen and if not that's fine as well. I hope they'll have fun.”

 

 

Switching back to me comments, their attitude has been the same constantly with really directly claiming that DLC should be free unless it's substantial, yet never really quantifying what is substantial and attacking Day 1 DLC. So now that they are charging for DLC, one which will use the same resources already in the game, I feel it is justified to refer to them having been hypocrites on the matter.

 

Again, to repeat myself ad infinitum, I don't actually have an issue with them charging for ther DLC.

[In Exile]

Again, to repeat myself ad infinitum, I don't actually have an issue with them charging for ther DLC.

 

I would go further and say that I generally support paid DLC, because it has a different ROI and provides a means for companies to recoup development costs from existing consumers rather than chasing bigger and bigger audiences to the detriment of a more niche crowd. I just dislike hypocrisy. 

[Morty Smith]

Yet it pretty clearly details their attitudes towards DLC, as a company it doesn't really matter what game it's from unless if their mandate officially changes, which is fine if it does, but considering most quotations from CD Projekt Red since then, it doesn't seem like idea has changed much. Your quote from before even reflected this too.

 

We can argue if they mean it or not, or have wiggle room to change their minds, which they obviously do, but fact of the matter is, this was the ideals presented for almost four years now from the company, so it's somewhat contradicting to see a game with two big expansions or DLC or whatever you want to call them, coming. 

 

I guess we have to wait, come october, to know what substantial does mean to CDPR and if it´s worth the price. But based on their quotes, I don´t see the hypocrisy in charging for what they say will be "substantial". If the content doesn´t hold up in well content, I´ll also call foul. Until then my boobs are calm.

[In Exile]

I guess we have to wait, come october, to know what substantial does mean to CDPR and if it´s worth the price. But based on their quotes, I don´t see the hypocrisy in charging for what they say will be "substantial". If the content doesn´t hold up in well content, I´ll also call foul. Until then my boobs are calm.

 

It's hypocritical because their position is (1) DLC is anti-consumer, unless it's "enough" and (2) we're totally the arbiters of "enough", and the other guy certainly isn't giving it to you. It's all smokescreens, wordplay and self-congratulatory shilling for their product. Like with all the praise for how PC centric they are despite the awful UIs in TW3 and TW2. 

[Morty Smith]

It's hypocritical because their position is (1) DLC is anti-consumer, unless it's "enough" and (2) we're totally the arbiters of "enough", and the other guy certainly isn't giving it to you. It's all smokescreens, wordplay and self-congratulatory shilling for their product. Like with all the praise for how PC centric they are despite the awful UIs in TW3 and TW2. 

 

Have you played "hearts of stone" and "blood and wine" yet?

[In Exile]

Have you played "hearts of stone" and "blood and wine" yet?

 

No...? But it doesn't matter. That's not what makes it hypocritical. It's like hurling an insult that's true about another person when it's also true about you. The fact you're right doesn't make you less hypocritical. 

[Morty Smith]

No...? But it doesn't matter. That's not what makes it hypocritical. It's like hurling an insult that's true about another person when it's also true about you. The fact you're right doesn't make you less hypocritical. 

 

It kinda does. It´s the first PC DLC that they charge for and they said: "We’ve said in the past that if we ever decide to release paid content, it will be vast in size and represent real value for the money. Both our expansions offer more hours of gameplay than quite a few standalone games out there.”

 

They have to prove if their words mean anything, be it ill or well.

[Elhanan]

Both DAI and TW3 offer free and purchasable DLC, I believe.

[Hiemoth]

It's hypocritical because their position is (1) DLC is anti-consumer, unless it's "enough" and (2) we're totally the arbiters of "enough", and the other guy certainly isn't giving it to you. It's all smokescreens, wordplay and self-congratulatory shilling for their product. Like with all the praise for how PC centric they are despite the awful UIs in TW3 and TW2. 

 

I can't agree enough about the UI in TW2, although I haven't tried the one in TW3 yet. That system was clearly built for the console controller, which would have been okay, if a bit weird, but they kept harping how TW games first developed for PCs.

[Hiemoth]

It kinda does. It´s the first PC DLC that they charge for and they said: "We’ve said in the past that if we ever decide to release paid content, it will be vast in size and represent real value for the money. Both our expansions offer more hours of gameplay than quite a few standalone games out there.”

 

They have to prove if their words mean anything, be it ill or well.

 

But that is drawing lines in the sand. Their previous stance on DLC has been that it is anti-consumerist, unless it meets that mythical mark of being substantial, and note that they have never actually mentioned any DLCs that met that mark, instead taking potshots at other companies for their DLC policies. So the follow-up question what is substantial is completely irrelevant, as that is such an objective standard. I felt Legacy was substantial, I felt Omage was substantial, yet they are also DLCs.

[LinksOcarina]

I guess we have to wait, come october, to know what substantial does mean to CDPR and if it´s worth the price. But based on their quotes, I don´t see the hypocrisy in charging for what they say will be "substantial". If the content doesn´t hold up in well content, I´ll also call foul. Until then my boobs are calm.

 

Fair point, but I also don't think what they consider substantial really fits into this at all based on previous assertions.

[wolfhowwl]

It's hypocritical because their position is (1) DLC is anti-consumer, unless it's "enough" and (2) we're totally the arbiters of "enough", and the other guy certainly isn't giving it to you. It's all smokescreens, wordplay and self-congratulatory shilling for their product. Like with all the praise for how PC centric they are despite the awful UIs in TW3 and TW2. 

 

It was funny how they also refused to initially deal with GreenManGaming, a legitimate storefront for PC games that other publishers don't have a problem with. Of course GMG is known for taking a hit on their margins to offer very competitive discounts (you could get DA:I and Pillars for 25% off before release) and that would undercut their storefront GOG. A good move for CDPR's bottom line but not very "pro-consumer" lol.

[In Exile]

I can't agree enough about the UI in TW2, although I haven't tried the one in TW3 yet. That system was clearly built for the console controller, which would have been okay, if a bit weird, but they kept harping how TW games first developed for PCs.

TW3 is better. It has some strange choices and I need to edit an ini file to change all the key bindings. Some bizarre UI choices and input choices.