"Theoretical" Witcher 2 DLC Will Be Free on PC - But Not 360

[Rack]

So spend 200$ on a console and pay for some DLC, or spend 900$ on a gaming computer and get free DLC. I'll stick with a console, thank you.

Honestly, the PC gaming arrogance around here is getting annoying. Some of us don't have piles of disposable income.

Not so much arrogance as irritated by the ignorance of people who believe that PC gamers spend an absurd amount of money on a game dedicated box. Last I checked, a PC doesn't just play games and a lot of the PC gamers on this site think it's a waste of time and money to buy a game dedicated box when their computer could do everything.

The average person already spends a ridiculous amount of money on computers that can't do more than basic, every day tasks and uses an integrated graphics chip.

That's not so much ignorance as knowledge. I've got a £150 laptop that is flat out better than any gaming PC for work and accessing the Internet. If I want a gaming PC it's £1,000 for something that will be obsolete in 3 years, or £500 for something that's obsolete now. Gaming on the PC is expensive, you get sweeteners like this, free online and steam sales but it's still way more expensive than console gaming. You get mods, better graphics and access to different genres but there should be no denying that you have to pay for it.

 

[CLC Akira]

For everyone that thought it would be fun to flame me over my comment, the 360 port isn't going to be out for almost a year. Yes, I read the story and I still say the author got his facts incorrect along with the title for the article as well. If CD Project Red does do DLC for The Witcher 2 it's not going to be a year from now it will be much sooner which will get put into the 360 release. Anything that they do after that will probably for The Witcher 3 and not more DLC. Why doesn't anyone go and do some research on this stuff instead of taking one persons article as the only fact. I f@#king hate people that think just because one person told them something it must be the undeniable truth. You have all the research tools available to dig deeper but instead you decide to talk shit to me.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Sorry for asking but... Has the release date for the console version even been announced yet?

 

[Scrustle]

I'm looking forward to the game coming out on 360, and paying for DLC doesn't phase me. These guys obviously aren't going to charge for stuff that isn't worth it, and it sounds as if they will keep the price low anyway.

 

[shado_temple]

It sounds exactly like the situation Valve is in when it comes to updating their games as well; PC can pick it up for free, but Microsoft's policies are too restrictive to allow for the same flow of add-ons. I may not have played either of the Witchers, but I do respect CD Projekt for supporting games this well after release.

 

[Waaghpowa]

So spend 200$ on a console and pay for some DLC, or spend 900$ on a gaming computer and get free DLC. I'll stick with a console, thank you.

Honestly, the PC gaming arrogance around here is getting annoying. Some of us don't have piles of disposable income.

Not so much arrogance as irritated by the ignorance of people who believe that PC gamers spend an absurd amount of money on a game dedicated box. Last I checked, a PC doesn't just play games and a lot of the PC gamers on this site think it's a waste of time and money to buy a game dedicated box when their computer could do everything.

The average person already spends a ridiculous amount of money on computers that can't do more than basic, every day tasks and uses an integrated graphics chip.

That's not so much ignorance as knowledge. I've got a £150 laptop that is flat out better than any gaming PC for work and accessing the Internet. If I want a gaming PC it's £1,000 for something that will be obsolete in 3 years, or £500 for something that's obsolete now. Gaming on the PC is expensive, you get sweeteners like this, free online and steam sales but it's still way more expensive than console gaming. You get mods, better graphics and access to different genres but there should be no denying that you have to pay for it.

You only spend that kind of money if you want the absolute top of the line. If you want console level, it's about 500 dollars, which is about 200 pounds these days. There are a million threads on this site where many people, including Andy Chalk, author of this article, who say that anyone who thinks console gaming is cheaper than PC doesn't know what they're doing and backs it with evidence. Do you have anything to say in regards to the article? If not, I suggest you try looking for those threads I mentioned rather than continuously filling this thread with irrelevant ignorance, since it seems you'd rather talk about that.

 

[Rack]

You only spend that kind of money if you want the absolute top of the line. If you want console level, it's about 500 dollars, which is about 200 pounds these days. There are a million threads on this site where many people, including Andy Chalk, author of this article, who say that anyone who thinks console gaming is cheaper than PC doesn't know what they're doing and backs it with evidence. Do you have anything to say in regards to the article? If not, I suggest you try looking for those threads I mentioned rather than continuously filling this thread with irrelevant ignorance, since it seems you'd rather talk about that.

Yeah easy enough. There's no link to the article, but I'll take a punt that any PC it suggests you could build for £350 will already be insufficient to run Battlefield 3 and have a worthless power supply that will fry the computer in a matter of months, and the only component that can be transferred to a replacement will be the OS.

The absolute tip top, best PC you could get when the PS3 (let alone 360) was released just can't compare to the PS3 for any games excepting Space Marine and Portal 2. Now obviously the middle ground is more cost efficient, but you're still looking at a hefty outlay every three/four years

If you built a system 2 years ago with an i5 750 and a 4870 you're looking at about $350 for those components and about another $350 for OS, Ram, hard disks, case, PSU and so on. You could run Battlefield 3 if you SLI in another 4870 but as a system that's not going to last much longer at all. And that's pretty much a best case scenario, the i5 and 4870 both offering very reasonable price/performance ratios and games requirements holding steady for a while, it's impossible to buy a system that far ahead of the curve today for any money. But even then $850 every 3 years is just crippled by the consoles in terms of cost efficiency.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Really good to hear that this studio is picking up on the gaming industry and going AGAINST the flow.

 

[MrTub]

You only spend that kind of money if you want the absolute top of the line. If you want console level, it's about 500 dollars, which is about 200 pounds these days. There are a million threads on this site where many people, including Andy Chalk, author of this article, who say that anyone who thinks console gaming is cheaper than PC doesn't know what they're doing and backs it with evidence. Do you have anything to say in regards to the article? If not, I suggest you try looking for those threads I mentioned rather than continuously filling this thread with irrelevant ignorance, since it seems you'd rather talk about that.

Yeah easy enough. There's no link to the article, but I'll take a punt that any PC it suggests you could build for £350 will already be insufficient to run Battlefield 3 and have a worthless power supply that will fry the computer in a matter of months, and the only component that can be transferred to a replacement will be the OS.

The absolute tip top, best PC you could get when the PS3 (let alone 360) was released just can't compare to the PS3 for any games excepting Space Marine and Portal 2. Now obviously the middle ground is more cost efficient, but you're still looking at a hefty outlay every three/four years

If you built a system 2 years ago with an i5 750 and a 4870 you're looking at about $350 for those components and about another $350 for OS, Ram, hard disks, case, PSU and so on. You could run Battlefield 3 if you SLI in another 4870 but as a system that's not going to last much longer at all. And that's pretty much a best case scenario, the i5 and 4870 both offering very reasonable price/performance ratios and games requirements holding steady for a while, it's impossible to buy a system that far ahead of the curve today for any money. But even then $850 every 3 years is just crippled by the consoles in terms of cost efficiency.

Lets look at the numbers.

I could buy a pc for 5000kr (784$) that could run Bf3

Or I could buy a xbox 360 for 1890kr (250gb slim version) and 1890kr is 297$

Lets say I buy around 8 games a year

Thats 400kr each for PC games 8x400=3200kr(502$)
And 600kr each for Xbox 360 games 8x600=4800kr (753$)

Add xbox live that costs 159kr for 3 months so, 159x4=636kr (100$)



And lets say that the computer will need no updates for 2 years

PC:5000+3200+3200=11400 Swedish Kr (1 789$)
Xbox 360:1890+4800+4800+636+636=12762 Swedish kr (2 003$)


2003$- 1789$=214$

So for me it would be cheaper to buy a pc.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

So we can't blame this on consoles in general just morons also I can't type a solid black block on a keyboard Mr. Captcha

 

[That PC Guy]

If you buy a digital copy i'd recommend you do it on gog.com(30 bucks at the moment). Their version has no drm of any kind, there is no client you have to run in the background or anything else that usually plagues digitally distributed games. Also, you get the artbook (digital that is) which isn't part of the standard retail edition.

 

[Babitz]

I bought TW2 for 14 euro on g2play.net today. Looking forward to 2.0.