Witcher 3 announces 2 (paid) Expansion Packs before release of main game

aozgolo

New member
Mar 15, 2011
1,033
0
0
CD Projekt Red has announced, and is already accepting pre-orders for an Expansion pass ($24.99) for 2 new Expansion Packs for The Witcher 3 which won't be released until May 17th. The first expansion titled Heart of the Stone will feature an additional 10 hour adventure for Geralt and will release in October. The second expansion Blood & Wine will feature a 20 hour adventure in a new land and will release in Q1 of 2016.

Unlike The Witcher 3's DLCs which are all free (There are 16 planned), these are full blown expansions harkening back to the old days of PC games getting substantial content additions.

While I'm sure there is going to be the inevitable naysayers about this, I feel it's mostly due to how other companies try to milk money off their customers. I will say though that these expansions certainly look worth the price, and while they are announced in advance of the game release, they aren't day-one content, and will be staggered out several months.

What is your reaction to this news?
 

ninja666

New member
May 10, 2020
898
0
0
I'm kinda neutral towards it. They're gonna charge for the expansions separately anyway, so what's the difference if you pay now and get them earlier or pay when they come out properly. That is, if the price difference isn't going to be outrageously large.
 

The Madman

New member
Dec 7, 2007
4,404
0
0
CDProjekt RED have always said that they'd like to do proper expansion packs as far back as the first Witcher game, this is just the first time they've obviously felt comfortable enough with the game to have them planned in advance. I've no problem with the practice myself, a good solid expansion pack ala Throne of Bhall or Shivering Isle can make for amazing value when done well and it's certainly better in my mind at least than spreading the content out over a half-dozen smaller pieces of DLC.

As for whether I'll be buying them, well, that depends entirely on how well Witcher 3 turns out once I've gotten my hands on it.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Well its good to see the Witcher is doggidly determined to hit every bullshit branch on the way down as it falls from the AAA tree.
I'm really looking forward to day 1 DLC and in game micro-transactions where you can spend $5 for full health or something.
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
1,201
0
0
16 free DLC and two paid (half-price?)..expansions? real expansions, like in the olden days? Sounds Sweet!
My only question is if they've "fixed" the OTS camera yet? (combat was another thing but it says it's revamped so..)
If they haven't its not on my list. Mmmaybe to encourage such behaviour..maybe.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Silentpony said:
Well its good to see the Witcher is doggidly determined to hit every bullshit branch on the way down as it falls from the AAA tree.
I'm really looking forward to day 1 DLC and in game micro-transactions where you can spend $5 for full health or something.
What on earth is wrong with planned expansions?
 

Fappy

\[T]/
May 1, 2020
12,010
0
0
Country
United States
Seems kinda early to announce it, but if these expansions really do offer the level of content that they are implying I don't see anything wrong with it. Season Passes can be done right... it's just a rare occurrence.
 

aozgolo

New member
Mar 15, 2011
1,033
0
0
TBH my only issue is that many expansions incorporate features and ideas from community feedback to give players certain things they really want. I hope this will still be done to some extent with patches, and it's probably not too late to add certain things into the expansions before ship but nothing too feature rich.

I am still excited for it overall and will still get the expansions, I just hope an honest effort to do patching is included like in past Witcher games, but I don't see any reason why this won't be the case!
 

Shadow-Phoenix

New member
Mar 22, 2010
2,289
0
0
Whatever happened to planning after the game was released or at the very least keeping quiet about your current planning so you don't scare off or annoy your customers.

The paid content doesn't really scream expansion like the old days where expansions were actual expansions that had hours upon hours, this is more like DLC since there's other DLC from other games that can do 20 hrs and more, also having up to 16 planned doesn't really feel like they are expansions either, again it just feels like spamming DLC that they could have fitted in the game but decided to sweeten the pot by making it look like they care with the whole free dlc included deal, the 16 that are planned are the real dlc if anything.
 

CommanderZx2

New member
Dec 13, 2014
72
0
0
Shadow-Phoenix said:
Whatever happened to planning after the game was released or at the very least keeping quiet about your current planning so you don't scare off or annoy your customers.

The paid content doesn't really scream expansion like the old days where expansions were actual expansions that had hours upon hours, this is more like DLC since there's other DLC from other games that can do 20 hrs and more, also having up to 16 planned doesn't really feel like they are expansions either, again it just feels like spamming DLC that they could have fitted in the game but decided to sweeten the pot by making it look like they care with the whole free dlc included deal, the 16 that are planned are the real dlc if anything.
Hearts of Stone is due to release in October and Blood and Wine isn't due to release until 2016. This isn't something like horse armour thrown together and then sold as an extra.
 

SeventhSigil

New member
Jun 24, 2013
273
0
0
Shadow-Phoenix said:
Whatever happened to planning after the game was released or at the very least keeping quiet about your current planning so you don't scare off or annoy your customers.

The paid content doesn't really scream expansion like the old days where expansions were actual expansions that had hours upon hours, this is more like DLC since there's other DLC from other games that can do 20 hrs and more, also having up to 16 planned doesn't really feel like they are expansions either, again it just feels like spamming DLC that they could have fitted in the game but decided to sweeten the pot by making it look like they care with the whole free dlc included deal, the 16 that are planned are the real dlc if anything.
...possible I misread your post, but it looks like you're under the impression that the 16 planned things are 16 planned paid DLC. Rather, I'm pretty sure that it's the free DLC that has 16 planned installments. In terms of paid content, the two announced expansions are, at the very least, the only ones they've announced on the horizon. Apologies if I just misread your post. ^_^
 

Windcaler

New member
Nov 7, 2010
1,332
0
0
I have two initial thoughts upon hearing the news. 1. Lets wait till we see how witcher 3 turns out before throwing more money at an unproven product. 2. Even if witcher 3 turns out to be amazing (I still havnt played the other 2) I think Ill just wait for the game of the year edition so I can get everything for the $60 price tag. I dont mind waiting for a good game, I mind even less waiting for a game to be finished before I put down any money
 

Compatriot Block

New member
Jan 28, 2009
702
0
0
Clearly the only way to stop people from whining about expansions is to start working on them at the normal time, but delay announcing them until way after release for no reason.

Can somebody post that chart about DLC development times? I can't remember what it's called, but it shows how people forget that there is a period of time between a game being finished and being launched.

What are developers supposed to do? Wait for some arbitrary amount of time so they aren't accused of cutting out content that wasn't even made until after the main game was completed?
 

G00N3R7883

New member
Feb 16, 2011
281
0
0
If they are "expansions" of the quality and length that we used to get for games like NeverWinter Nights 2 or like Skyrim has done, I don't have a problem with it.

My biggest problem with the modern trend of DLCs and season passes is that they're typically short, overpriced, and feel like they should have been part of the main game. I saw a headline a few days ago that the Witcher 3 main game is supposed to be 200 hours long. Even if that's the usual developer exaggeration, its clear that what is going to release on May 19 will be significant.

I suppose it might have been better to wait until late June to make the announcement to avoid some negative reactions.
 

Mister K

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
Compatriot Block said:
Clearly the only way to stop people from whining about expansions is to start working on them at the normal time, but delay announcing them until way after release for no reason.

Can somebody post that chart about DLC development times? I can't remember what it's called, but it shows how people forget that there is a period of time between a game being finished and being launched.

What are developers supposed to do? Wait for some arbitrary amount of time so they aren't accused of cutting out content that wasn't even made until after the main game was completed?
Exactly. That is exactly what they should do. You remember why they got all the praise in the past: because they weren't acting like shits towards customers. MEANWHILE, many other companies went into practice of making "DLC" that was actually on disk already (see Capcom with Street Figher X Tekken) or simply cutting content out just to sell it later for that tasty cash money. After at the very least 5 years of such practices by devs you simply can't blame people for thinking that what CDP doing now is fishy.

Even if you are making a content which if were to be included in the initial release would've pushed the release date really far away and maybe pushed the price of the game higher, you, knowing about the practises of other developers, should IMHO wait for untill 1 or 2 months prior to release of DLC to actually announce it. You should do it in order to at the very least not scare of potential, yet really suspicious of current gaming industry individuals.

Emotional P.S. Imagine if EA, Activision, Ubisoft or Capcom did something like that. This thread would've been filled with posts like "Crapcom at it again" or "Ea in a nutshell" or something like that. It seems that if you are Valve, CD Projekt or Nintendo you get a free unlimited pass to do any type of bullshit, becuase you already have your own personal internet hate protection army.
 

Compatriot Block

New member
Jan 28, 2009
702
0
0
Mister K said:
Compatriot Block said:
Clearly the only way to stop people from whining about expansions is to start working on them at the normal time, but delay announcing them until way after release for no reason.

Can somebody post that chart about DLC development times? I can't remember what it's called, but it shows how people forget that there is a period of time between a game being finished and being launched.

What are developers supposed to do? Wait for some arbitrary amount of time so they aren't accused of cutting out content that wasn't even made until after the main game was completed?
Exactly. That is exactly what they should do. You remember why they got all the praise in the past: because they weren't acting like shits towards customers. MEANWHILE, many other companies went into practice of making "DLC" that was actually on disk already (see Capcom with Street Figher X Tekken) or simply cutting content out just to sell it later for that tasty cash money. After at the very least 5 years of such practices by devs you simply can't blame people for thinking that what CDP doing now is fishy.

Even if you are making a content which if were to be included in the initial release would've pushed the release date really far away and maybe pushed the price of the game higher, you, knowing about the practises of other developers, should IMHO wait for untill 1 or 2 months prior to release of DLC to actually announce it. You should do it in order to at the very least not scare of potential, yet really suspicious of current gaming industry individuals.

Emotional P.S. Imagine if EA, Activision, Ubisoft or Capcom did something like that. This thread would've been filled with posts like "Crapcom at it again" or "Ea in a nutshell" or something like that. It seems that if you are Valve, CD Projekt or Nintendo you get a free unlimited pass to do any type of bullshit, becuase you already have your own personal internet hate protection army.
The first one is due in October, the next one isn't even due until 2016. There is no rational way to believe they would hide DLC on the disc for almost an entire year. This is them saying that they plan to make DLC in the future, which are also supposed to be 10 and 20 hours long respectively.

Other companies being shady (and yes, I agree a lot of DLC practices are very shady) does not make this bullshit. If it turned out that this stuff was cut from the original, then everyone would be pissed, but it wouldn't be due out in 2016 if it was already done. CD Projekt isn't responsible for other developers being shitty. In fact, I appreciate how they're being up front about their development schedule.

Besides, all the other DLC things (16 of them, mostly little cool things that might cost a few bucks otherwise) they've announced are free specifically to make "a statement" against nickle-and-dime DLC practice. These two in question are planned, future, content-rich expansions.
 

JohnZ117

A blind man before the Elephant
Jun 19, 2012
295
0
0
Off topic: Let this be my official declaration. CD Projekt Red, I will not buy anything else having to do with The Witcher 3 until after Cyberpunk 2077 is released. You have stalled it for too long.

On topic: Meh, sounds fair to me.

Captcha, twenty one. See, CD Projekt Red, even Captcha agrees with me.
 

Lufia Erim

New member
Mar 13, 2015
1,420
0
0
Compatriot Block said:
Clearly the only way to stop people from whining about expansions is to start working on them at the normal time, but delay announcing them until way after release for no reason.

Can somebody post that chart about DLC development times? I can't remember what it's called, but it shows how people forget that there is a period of time between a game being finished and being launched.

What are developers supposed to do? Wait for some arbitrary amount of time so they aren't accused of cutting out content that wasn't even made until after the main game was completed?
Make a new game?

OT: Two planned expansions? Does that mean that the story won't have a determined ending? I like my games with proper endings...
 

Gizmo1990

Insert funny title here
Oct 19, 2010
1,900
0
0
No problem with this at all. What is pissing me off is everyone fliping their shit about it. They did not lie. It is NOT dlc. It is a full blown expansion that will not be released until at least October. Do I think selling pre orders for it is a little stupid? Yes. Do I think this is as bad as paied day 1 dlc? Hell no.
 

AntiChri5

New member
Nov 9, 2011
584
0
0
Gizmo1990 said:
No problem with this at all. What is pissing me off is everyone fliping their shit about it. They did not lie. It is NOT dlc. It is a full blown expansion that will not be released until at least October. Do I think selling pre orders for it is a little stupid? Yes. Do I think this is as bad as paied day 1 dlc? Hell no.
What is the difference between DLC and an Expansion?

Latest DLC for Inquisition takes more then 10 hours to complete. No one is calling it an expansion though, just "DLC".