CD Projekt Red responds to loot box controversy

'If you buy a full priced game, you should get a big, polished piece of content.'

[UCForce]

Damn right, CD Project Red !

[Xenophon_York]

Mods have a stressful task—I get it. But maybe some of our criticism—especially when conducted in the lite-hearted, comedic manner my above post was—should be viewed as stuff some mods could improve about their methodology. Case-in-point I was banned from commenting for twenty-four hours because of the above intended-innocuous "inappropriate" post.

Just me even rationally explaining this might lead to Xenophon_York becoming permanently banned—but we shouldn't feel oppressed when conveying sense-and-reason.

Reminds me of the Stanford Experiment when the students assigned to pretend to be prison guards physically assaulted and abused the students assigned to pretend to be prisoners.

[Yi-Long]

This is why I buy CD Project games on Day 1; I know they'll release a great game, and I trust them to not nickel & dime me 5 seconds after the game is out.

When they do release DLC, it great value for money.

[WelkinCole]

Not only great value for money but you know for sure that they were not cut content from the main game just to sell them as separate DLC. Blood and Wine for example would never fit in the main game if it were part of the main game.

[UCForce]

Don’t forget about Horizon Zero Dawn. The game have similar approaches like Witcher 3.

[Obscure_Observer]

@UCForce

"Don’t forget about Horizon Zero Dawn. The game have similar approaches like Witcher 3."

You mean more like Skyrim. Paid dlc. CD Projekt Red gave us 16 FREE dlcs and two paid expansions packs.

[bluefox755]

@obscure_observer Paid DLC is fine if it's worth it. Both Witcher 3 and HZD gave big, lengthy paid DLC, that was well worth the asking price. Free DLC is always appreciated, and Witcher 3 gave cool little bonus stuff for free. HZD didn't do any little stuff like that, but I think that's fine, they still did DLC right.

[UCForce]

@Obscure_Observer Well, Horizon Zero Dawn gave us free update and expansion pack that worth the price. So yes, both of two games have similar approaches.

[Obscure_Observer]

@bluefox755

Didn´t say The Frozen Wilds is not worth it, and i do agreed with everything that you said. When i compared HZD to Skyrim i did it in a positive. I just point out that CD Projekt Red´s The Witcher 3 is on another level.

[UCForce]

@Obsurce_Observer Another thing, GG do have former Witcher 3 devs to help the game.

[Obscure_Observer]

@UCForce

"Well, Horizon Zero Dawn gave us free update and expansion pack that worth the price. So yes, both of two games have similar approaches."

Gimme a break, dude. There´s not such a thing as "paid updates" so stop with this nonsense because Guerrilla didn´t gave us nothing for free. They followed Bethesda model of business witch is a good thing in my eyes but that´s it!

The Witcher 3 is on another level, period!

[BioShockGX]

"This is why I buy CD Project games on Day 1"
But you shouldn't. Witcher 3 day 1 was a bugfest.

[DarXyde]

A fair point, but CD Projekt Red is perhaps the only company I give a pass for the simple fact that they are genuinely passionate about putting out a full-assed experience. The Witcher III certainly had its issues early on, but it turned out to be one of the best games this generation and one of the best supported.

Personally, I'd wait for them to iron out the bugs, but their games are a labor of love and it's hard to stay mad.

[Aenea]

I got it day 1, except for some framedrops and a quest not going as it should it worked fine!

[_-EDMIX-_]

Agreed

don't get me wrong I love the developer but I did not have fun with a corrupted save and in hindsight I probably should have just waited a few weeks even though I really want to get cyberpunk 2077 day 1, I'm actually considering just waiting a few weeks or at least until the team even addresses if they're doing something differently.

Trust me folks there's no point to buying an RPG day one that has a bug that corrupt your game save I literally lost 40 hours because of that issue and ended up only beating The Witcher 3 years later.

[DanteVFenris666]

It was a giant game no way can you release something like that bug free. Not possible. Bug free software doesn’t even exist

[bluefox755]

Even with the bugs, it was still better than most anything out at the time. Furthermore, the devs were committed and quick about fixing them asap.

[Relientk77]

Thank you CD Project RED and I completely agree.

[senorfartcushion]

Yessir, Dean Cain, Sir.

[--bienio--]

Looks like cd red project starting marketing with cyberpunk 2077great!

[rainslacker]

It is rather funny how the negativity surrounding loot boxes, or DRM in a few cases, can actually become a marketing tactic as companies say things that are simply consumer friendly.

10 years ago, I never would have thought that it'd be a selling point that a company is making a finished game with no, or no impact MT, or that they are facing the piracy problem by simply not including DRM or in some cases including a pirated version.

I think it shows just how far all this stuff has gone that it can be used to pander to those who are just tired of such things.

Props to CDPR, or any company who feels this way and isn't vocal about it. It should go without saying what was said here, but here we are. The industry is dividing itself IMO, and the future of gaming seems like it will come to a head at some point between the consumer and the publishers.

[Diffraction_Fos]

I love CDPR. But words are just words. If AAA games containing MTs continue to be very profitable as they currently are, then I have no doubt CDPR will follow suit somewhere down the line. Its how big companies work. They all want to be as profitable as can be.

But this is not the fault of the companies per se. Its mostly the fault of the majority of gamers who have more money than common sense. If they keep buying these kind of games, the companies will keep on making them. Its a losing battle for those of us that don't want games riddled with MTs. But we are a very small minority in this ocean of mindless gamers who just don't give a damn about any of this.

[rainslacker]

It really depends on the developers or publishers ambitions. Even in this cynical world, where it seems corporations or whoever are just out to ruin us and society while they gain more money and power, there are those companies and people who still try to do what they feel is the right thing. That glimmer of light in an otherwise crappy world.

But I do believe that we'll see more and more of them as time goes on.

What is important though is that a happy medium be found between the consumer and these companies be found that works for everyone. MT may be the big thing now, and likely will for a long time, but trends change, and it only takes one company or individual to offer up a better way to affect positive change....or negative in some cases. F2P, or even GaaS as we now call some games, wasn't once considered a bad thing, although many hardcore gamers saw them as lesser games sometimes. It was the twisting of what it could bring into something ugly that caused people to dislike it. Years ago, many people lamented how the slippery slope was being breached by people accepting MT in small doses, and now we're here today seeing the bottom of that slope. It's coming to a head at times, but ultimately, I don't feel it's going to make that much difference so long as there is significant revenue to be made from them. It would take a rather large shift in consumer spending habits to cause a change in how publishers do things, and that kind of thing takes time, and won't happen overnight. So it's the small battles that get won that can maybe one day reverse this course, or make things better for the consumer.

[Chaosdreams]

That's the kind of attitude I like to hear. Looks like their new IP will be delivered with the same manner of passion/love as the Witcher series.

[Eldyraen]

W3 model is perfect for me when it comes to singleplayer games with an “almost” gaas model (prolonged support aspect of it anyways).

A phenomenal game at entry price, continued support with smaller freebies (just icing on the cake really—didn’t have to do it), and then for extra profit release bigger full fledged expansion-like content. Minimal or zero “MT” design.

A few other games are following suit but still sadly have MTs: Shadow of War which did it worse with their mt design, and Assassin’s Creed Origins which is a happier medium if not ideal.

ACO seems to be going the continued support route with reasonable extra content but still has entirely optional MTs, which imo is probably the best MTs model atm (if you “have to accept it being in the future”). It’s entirely optional, isn’t shoved in your face, and practically all cosmetic (can finding items of “equal” quality just playing the game—some just don’t look as unique as 1-2 unbundled ones are definitely top notch). Plus zero RNG, just buy what you want or ignore the whole system entirely.

IF MTs have to exist they should follow that route and not rng imo. I’d be happier without them or being able to earn it all in game through unlocks though.

Unfortunately not all games today or going forward will be ditching MTs anytime soon so if we have to have them, make it as low key as possible while still being quality (paying for crap you don’t need or want makes it that much worse). It’s bad enough when someone feels “forced” to buy something to get what they want (Overwatch’s RNG system during events for only 1-2 items they care about). Spending a couple bucks to guarantee it is still better than rng, but worse than earning it otherwise without feeling like work trying to do so.

[starchild]

Good comment. I agree on all points.

[Mr Marvel]

Nice to know someone gets it.

[Ristul]

Thank goodness for CD Project Red.

[2cents]

Well said!

[ArchangelMike]

CyberPunk 2077 Day 1!

[TheOpenWorlder]

When one also buys a full priced game, they expect it not to be downgraded. STFU CD Projekt RED. How quick everyone is to forget they nuked the crap out of the game compared to E3 and kept their tiny little mouth holes shut to mislead consumers nearly 3 weeks after sale.

[rainslacker]

You brought the game at E3, which they then downgraded? interesting.

[TheOpenWorlder]

I bought after, which is when they admitted to the downgrade a little too late. It's called the cusp and before all the news. Great logic, dumbass

[_-EDMIX-_]

I mean what exactly were you even planning to do with The Witcher 3? Were you planning to just look at it or actually play it?

I would argue the downgrade to The Witcher 3 is so insignificant that anyone with a high-end gaming PC is literally going to be able to Eclipse anything that they originally showed anyway.

So it turns out the only people that actually got a permanent downgrade would be those who own PlayStation 4 or Xbox one but even then I would argue you could purchase the Xbox One X or PlayStation 4 Pro and just get the 4K update but likely still brings the quality above what was originally shown.

I mean buddy you're in tears because of a few pixels I don't think the downgrade issue was that big of a deal in me and many users on this site made it pretty clear that we did not really believe that the issue was really that huge.

The publisher apologized and everyone moved on. I don't believe it was ever done in Malice or purposely to deceive.

So the way I see it is if before and after that downgrade made you change your mind on the game ,it begs the question why exactly you ever even wanted it in the first place?

[OoglyBoogly]

"I would argue the downgrade to The Witcher 3 is so insignificant that anyone with a high-end gaming PC is literally going to be able to Eclipse anything that they originally showed anyway."

This isn't how downgrading works. The FIRST showing of The Witcher 3 had nearly completely different graphics.

http://s4.postimg.org/mjymk...

The 2013 E3 demo isn't just a "lighting change" or some such small change. No, the entire thing is different compared to the released game. The detail and geometry of the buildings, the number of NPC's and their detail...I mean, they look almost last-gen vs. next-gen.

Then there were even downgrades just months prior to release! The 2014 demo they release early in the year even had graphical features such as more debris and fauna and rocks all about, lighting looked a tad better, etc. Minor things (like the rocks by the stream) that didn't even need to be removed or downgraded were.

They, literally, lied about the game the entire time when it came to downgrades. Also, having a more powerful PC and being able to max the game doesn't make the NPC's more plentiful or intelligent acting like the 2013 E3 demo, doesn't make the buildings look way better and replaces their models...hell...maxing the game doesn't even add rocks they removed.

So, despite how good the game was...it is...loved it...they DID downgrade it. They DID say they hadn't SEVERAL times prior to release. They only admitted AFTER release that the game had undergone some downgrades to the visuals.

So...graphical downgrade is real (game quality doesn't matter) and the speed of the system you're playing on doesn't change that fact or make the game look like how they showed it.

[The 10th Rider]

I hardly find the downgrade to be nearly as significant as people say. A big part of it was the change to more vibrant colors. The dull colors that were in the initial reveal look good, but during gameplay it can cause issues because it's more difficult to see things well in different areas. If you're playing max settings on PC and use a mod that alters the colors then it looks pretty close to the initial look at the game.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I agree

I would argue it's probably even beyond anything that was originally shown based on mods.

People were exaggerating it making it sound like it went from this epic CGI looking game to a Playstation One looking game 😂😂😂

[The 10th Rider]

@_-EDMIX-_,

Unfortunately I don't think people really understand how much changing to the colors can affect a game. I for one was glad of the changes because the dull colors can make dark areas of the game a huge pain because it's hard to really see.

[AnubisG]

One more reason to buy games from these guys.

[iofhua]

It's nice to see that there are game developers in the world that still have integrity.

Yes, if you're paying $60 you should get a big, polished, AAA experience and not be nickle and dimed afterwards. Anything else is nonsensical.

[BadElf]

Good guy CD Project Red! Gotta love them!

[starforge71]

all the other devs should take a long hard look on how the witcher series has been successful and i will gladly buy CD Project games as they deliver great games without all the nonsense with PTW loot box's

[PLAYWATCH76]

Man, I just want to support these types of developers. Plus, they make terrific games,

[RCslayer]

Thats why I love these guys. I wise a lot more people would. Make the other devs see what these guys see already

[ApexWolf22]

Unless they provide you with an unfair advantage, what difference does it make if they want to peddle garbage that serves no purpose. Just don't buy it, I never have, I just despise when they make you grind your ass off for it instead...

[8bitswarrior]

The Witcher 2 and 3 were day one, this one will be also , this is the way that developers should follow, no bull... toward us, really well done from CD projekt Red!!!

[jay2]

spot on fully agree

[Legendary_Soldier]

I love them and those the kind of developers who deserve respect!
But as long as you have some childish gamers who pay for this stuff, EA and Activision like developers will not stop doing it!

[DrumBeat]

CDPR are among the masters of game development. Sitting right alongside Naughty Dog.

[OoglyBoogly]

Notice they said "piece of content"...not "full GAME"...so they're saying that they'll still make extra stuff for you to pay for...they just give you a bigger first piece than others might. Same difference.

[ocelot07]

This is why I buy EA games second hand. You have the likes of CD Project Red, Guerilla Games, From Software who give you so much content for your $60/£40. Just look at how many hours Witcher 3, Horizon Zero Dawn, Dark Souls and Bloodborne give you for that £40 launch day price. None of them have any loot boxes or Microtransactions even though each of those games can easily add them. Sure each of these games have released a paid for expansions months after release. But each one of added even more hours of enjoyment and without splitting any sport of community in half.

Then you have the likes of EA. Who releases a game like Battlefield 1 with a 6-7 hours campaign as well as a very good and addicting mutlplayer mode that can produce many many hours of fun. But then also have season passes that splits the community. Plus also has paid for loot boxes.

I think if microtransactions have to be apart of the game. Then the DLC needs to be free. Plus noting is hidden behind a paywall. If I do want to buy a new skin for my weapon or what ever. Then I must be able to unlock it or redeem in game points to buy it if I don't want to spend real money on it.

[opinionated]

“The choice is yours, and the only thing you pay for is time and convenience."

Umm that’s every game with loot boxes. It’s entirely optional to pay for these things. It’s literally convenience of not playing to earn the things. People are so ignorant about this topic, it’s maddening. It reminds me of toddlers screaming in the grocery store.