I played about halfway through it and while there were many missions it just felt very redundant as if extra missions were padded in to supposedly make it worth $60. The fact you are stuck playing a super-long campaign with a single faction grinds on you.

i havent played so i cant really comment. But if the story is good, i dont mind.

I mean, there are bunch of book series, for example Malazan book of the fallen series and Game of Thrones, where some POV character is left in real clinch or otherwise interesting situation...but the writer doesnt get back into that for say next 2000 pages.

And i havent minded, because in both series this sort of thing has felt very fitting.

I think ill play SC2 eventually, but got more interesting games ive actually bought to play first ;)

Are you for real...
The reality is 'Launch day content pack' is marketing for 'how can we release a game and then make the substance of it seem like it is extra stuff'

And this is why the games industry is getting more and more anti-consumer by the month...

But then I guess we only have fools to blame for this for encouraging them by being suckered into the marketing bs.

I miss when games were just that, fun and not an opportunity by design to screw over gamers

Witcher 3 shouldnt have any dlc that costs money though... so not sure whats the problem here even from "dlc-extremist"?

Never mind the discount they offer for owning two earlier Witchers + Neverwinter nights platinum ed, which isnt bad either. Actually, tell me another game in this class that either offers or has offered better deal for the money at launch?

...and i havent actually bought it, but thats just because of my huge backlog. ill get it eventually for sure ;)

Depends on the vampire.

Sadly my previous post is a concept lost on many, think of it like this...

Witcher 3 pricing is what it is, you look at it as 'oh great if i own the prev 2 games i get a discount'
People like that are the problem

There is no need for all the bs of the price as it just fubars the release to those with sense

Eg i saw the pricing for witcher 3 and just thought 'who are they kidding'

That is an opportunity to make a good first impression and sell the game to me in a positive way
(eg by setting a no-nonsense price)

Instead they mess about with reduced price if you own the other 2 games, and then also the region discount.

End result, I would have been interested if the price was just £30 UK GBP without the messing about.

So in closing, quit complicating things and just set a price as all we want to do is get our game on, not be put off by the initial price then have to read into it to find out that the price is around £30 gbp anyway.

Way to go on going out your way make a bad impression with the convoluted price.

edit: always looks suspicious when things have a 'more complicated than necessary' sell and the free game incentive is just a distraction tactic to sweeten the deal aka 'look over here (not over there).

oh well, maybe you should inform GOG about stopping the current sales as well, because well you know - the prices should be fixed n' stuff.

I agree that we disagree.

Snarky response, and a sale is a sale- that is clear.

The fact that 2 different replies to what I posted were just defending bad practices and then your reply here just goes to show that as long as customers remain unwise to it and just argue amongst themselves then the industry will continue to exploit them.

Sale events discount relating to my post is comparing apples and oranges.

Lets say for a second you aren't trolling and just don't understand.

Clarity in pricing is positive and something we as consumers should care about and be wise to.
Without clarity we are open to greater manipulation and misleading as some people aren't savvy enough to know when they are getting played - your reply is a case-in-point.

All customers should be treated equal as it is a reputation issue when you are treating a new customer worse than you are treating an existing customer.

Getting specific for a second, Witcher 3 is a continuation of a game idea but imagine this was a 3rd game but the previous 2 games were completely different and individual in their own right (eg not part of a series). Then, yes it would make more sense to consider the approach of a loyalty discount if customers had bought the previous 2 totally different games.

The fact that it is the 3rd in the series means that most people would have the previous 2 witcher games eg to play them in order for the story comprehension aspect of gaming.

In one sentence, I am talking about clarity and decisions that are anti-consumer including but not limited to, making a negative a positive to the customer - sales are clear and the clarity is welcome.

edit: i posted above before your edit - it's cool as you honestly didn't understand.

I think people should be less fixated on the term triple-a as if there is one thing the past has shown us all, it is that good games can come from anywhere and price does not equate to a measure of quality.

edit 2: this industry is in a pretty bad place currently as it is headed by the same thinking that led to the demise of the music industry (treating customers with contempt) - this is further evidenced by your point about the awards for witcher 3 so far an unreleased game

Some people thankfully in the industry 'get it' and i notice that reviews sites are actually now steering towards reviews after release rather than the bs reviews ahead of release which are a bad thing as they arent genuine eg only getting a pre release key if reviewer agrees to say only good things and not point out bugs etc.

We should all be united as customers in agreeing that we don't accept being treated badly by certain practises in the industry.

Vote with your wallet.

The price is very clearly written both GOG and Steam atleast. I dont get whats so difficult about it.

But lets go with your flow for few seconds.

Would you think it would be better for GOG to offer the game here and steam (for example) at the same price and same content?

You do realize that that a game sold on Steam nets them way less money because of the middleman (steam) and thus they can offer extras at their own store? Business wise ofcourse gog wants you to buy the game here, as it means you would be more likely to buy more stuff here as well. Thus they could choose to sell it even bit lower price in their own service.

To me this is just fine, i can choose more stuff and lower price in their store or buy in steam or elsewhere (with steamworks i think) if you prefer the drm option. Not that i have anything against steam as such.

But nvm, different people different opinions. Not something i lose nights sleep over - ive learned to accept that long time ago.

Bottom line:

Even same brand of milk costs different price in different shops, games are ultimately consumer goods and thus not a bit different. Shops do choose their own profit margins, not the manufacturers.

Sadly people like yourself are part of the problem, it's your mindset that gives it all momentum.

My flow didn't even discuss different outlets to purchase the game from but as you bring it up here's how that works....

Not only do I know the cut is less on steam but i can even tell you the split.
But as a customer, i shouldn't really have to give a damn. By that i mean the product is of my concern not a companies marketing budget and as a customer i do not expect to be subsidizing it with deliberated inflated prices depending where i buy the product from - this does happen but this is why i say you are part of the problem - you justify it by defending the company for the higher price on steam but you do it not from a customer point of view.
This is very bad.

Having a game on Steam gives it the most exposure (read that as 'the best advertising campaign')
This should be a price paid by the company as an advertising budget however, what the company does is treat the customer badly and force them to obsorb that cost - ie punishing the customer for buying it on Steam - bad impression!

This practise is only wrong when it is the company directly mistreating the customer - retailers getting the product at cost then setting a price is ok and is good for anti monopoly reasons - steam pricing is not the same as it is the original company setting the price on steam

fyi the steam split is 60/40

I think then you have some serious issues with our whole capitalist system? (i do)

Lets say i am rebuilding my computer and want to buy Asrock Z97M Anniversary -mobo. Quick price search in Finland gives me 13 shops, with prices ranging from 84,77€ (without post) to 105,00€ including post.

If i understand anything of your logic, then this is totally wrong and anti-customer: Charging variable sums of money for the same product.

Or am i missing something here?

--

If you have issue with how much AAA games cost in general these days, then say that straightly. I for sure think the developing costs and profit margins are seriously out of hand for most of them.

edit: where exactly do i defend steams higher price?

You misunderstand my logic, see my previous post near the end referring to anti-monopoly - eg only one retailer selling a product is bad for the consumer (btw the multiple retailer thing only works positively if the retailer sets the price eg in steams case it does not work like that as the manufacturer sets price on steam which can be bad for the consumer) in bricks and mortar stores multiple prices is a good thing btw as it is the stores trying to compete with each other setting the price - but in steams pricing method it is all one-sided as its the game creator setting the price eg monopoly

You defended steams higher price in a previous post of your own where you said steam takes a cut - the justification was implied.

Despite this discussion we are having back and forth we both agree on one thing, too many cooks.
Massive budgets and costs don't make a game any more 'fun' as there is no correlation to be found between production cost and gameplay.


Game on.

So could you explain again the problem of the original "issue", that Witcher 3 here on GOG being sold cheaper and with more content being somehow bad thing? The deal on Steam is worse, unless you really just want to have it on Steam.

Or are we talking about different things here?

Witcher 3 is very bad example about monopoly title, because its not. There are plenty of those around. Origin has some exclusives id like to have elsewhere - yes, even on steam. Uplay has exclusives - sort of, i think they can all be also accessed via steam when bought there.

"Justification" is perhaps bad word there. Steam is one extra middleman who wants share of the profit, which ofcourse either rises the price or eats away someone elses profits.

In business sense this makes perfect logic: Every step in the act of selling product has to make living.

If to you price in shop "A" is too high, then just go to shop "B" and so on. Isnt this the most pro-consumer thing, being able to choose place where ever you want from?

Even steamworks only titles can be bought for cheap prices in those kinda gray area shops like kinguin, g2play, g2a and so on. Whether they are legal or not - ill not say one way or the other. Consumer choice anyhow.

For example the newest cod apparently slightly over 20€ vs 60€ or so on steam.

This is very true. In creative field, having more cooks just results in muddier and "mundane" result. Some of the best games have also been the cheapest to create. And this will ofcourse happen again and again in future as well.

--

On the AAA topic, there actually is something good about AAA games: They dont stay forever in "Early access". Early access has its uses....but also whole lot of problems, with for example ever getting ready. AAA games maybe crappy messes, but they do get their official release and reviews.