No they're not. In fact they are exactly aligned with each other. How they behaved was exactly how they said they were going to behave. Very, very publicly. They said they believe customers should not be punished by DRM, but pirates should be. People got upset. CDPR went ahead and did what they, people got more upset. CDPR backed down. It had nothing to do with poor sales.

Look, Navagon is right -I wanted to be nicer about it than he was, but he's essentially right.

Your arguments are simply contradictory - you want them to invest in a genre which is not big in order to somehow sell more games to arguably smaller audience while they have been selling a lot of games in a genre with a huge audience. CRPGs are huge right now. It is the second biggest market in games after MP shooters. CDPR's games are critical and commercial successes - in what universe is selling 1 million copies, not a commercial success?

You also want them not to make games they enjoy making in order to satisfy commercialism? That's exactly how *not* to make a game and how to ruin a genre for everyone BUT the so-called "casual" market. I'm sorry but your entire line of reasoning is antithetical to both business sense AND artistic integrity. It's just wrong.
Exactly.

Sorry here's the issue...

Mass effect 2 hits both the story audience and the gameplay audience. Most RPGs like witcher only hit the story audience because the gameplay is balls.

I'm not contradicting myself it only seems that way because of the vagueness of language. Most RPG's have poor combat and that's why bioware turned mass effect 2 into an action oriented story telling affair. My point is if they want to make games they want to make without making games that cater to those who want interactivity AND are popular with wide segments of the gaming population they are going to limit their audience because they are stuck.

Just like what happened to devs in the 90's before they got eaten up or disbanded because they put out a stinker.

They are. But the OP is convinced that not doing things the way they'd like them done is NOT DOING WHAT IT TAKES. Even though it seems to be working just fine.

Now don't get me wrong. I've highlighted numerous problems with GOG's current change in direction. But those points don't boil down to "GOG's not doing what I want them to". Most of the points won't really benefit me at all, other than seeing GOG's place in the market increase accordingly.

Have you tried the gameplay in The Witcher 2? It is very, very different from original. So much so that it upset some fans of fans of the original. If you have a computer capable of running it (I barely do with all the graphics options turned down to minimal settings), then maybe pick it up on sale in the future. The gameplay is really different from the original. It is completely action oriented. I happen to like the gameplay more than the original's, I have the feeling you would to.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-22-witcher-2-torrents-could-net-you-a-fine

Here you go. It's an article from over half a year before the game was released. Before preorders too, and there was no leaked pirate version either. They're saying they'll send threatening letters to pirates. No magic or time travel involved either, so it wasn't a reaction to sales numbers.

I'd like to add, that I loved Witcher 2's combat while Mass Effect 2's combat was such a bore that I turned the game to the easiest difficulty so I could get past it as fast as possible. If there had been a skip combat button, I would've used it in Mass Effects 1 and 2, but not in Witcher 2. Sometimes subjective things aren't as objective as they might feel.

I liked it too - but I prefer the combat style in TW2 overall. I actually found the combat in TW1 a bit repetitive by the end of the game, but overall I enjoyed the gameplay. I agree they can't lose either story or gameplay if they continue the franchise since they've built the franchise on both - especially story.

It's funny then how you keep going back to the ME games as your sterling example then, as those games are exactly that. Don't get me wrong, I had a great time with ME1-3, but it is exactly why they did so well: pandering to the masses. That isn't always a good thing though. Anyway, let's not kid ourselves. ME's combat has never been more than adequate at best. Oh, and the ME series has never been anything but shooters with heavy story-telling to me because it's so bare-bones that calling it an RPG is plain silly.

One man's game of watching paint dry is another man's example of excellent gameplay. I found PS:T entertaining both as interactive fiction and as a game. Other Infinity Engine games rocked for me because they were a perfect mix of action, tactics, and strategy; being able to pause the game and observe the statistics of both my party and their enemies allowed me to change tactics when things were going badly.

The appeal of certain genres and game mechanics can be highly subjective, and it's potentially erroneous to believe that a subjective opinion can be and is automatically objectively true.
On what basis? What criterion? How? What would you point to as an example of clear-cut "good" combat in an RPG and clear-cut "bad" combat in an RPG?

Man, I can't even... First of all, stop being so arrogant. No one here is braindead, I can assure you of that.

The second thing, story is NOT a passive affair, that is PRECISELY the point of The Witcher games. If you don't like it, fine, buy Legend of Grimrock here from GoG, it seems like something you'd enjoy. However, you have to realize that CD-Project red is actually catering to the group of people who liked Planescape and story-based RPGs like that, and it's apparently quite good at it - the witcher games are doing well. As for the pirate chase, they said they're gonna do that even before TW2 release, so it's not CDP desperate about loss of sales, it's just them living up to their words.

Anyway, I'm straying off from what I wanted to say. I love the witcher games, precisely because they are story-focused and precisely because they make it non-passive affair. You NEED to be involved in the story, you need to behave according to your beliefs and then bear the consequences. That is the whole point and just a few games did it as well - Mass Effect tried, but it was too clichéd to be of too much appeal to me.

What CDP is currently doing is catering to niché community of people who liked games like Planescape or Baldur's gate, and they're doing so quite well. Don't try to waltz in and persuade us that we are wrong, because a developer who finally gives us what we want showed up. Yours is a different grave to cry at: Of people who make dungeon crawlers or roguelikes. The Witcher isn't even trying to cater to people like you, and you really should realize that. So, please, do not persuade us that we don't actually like those games. I for one am incredibly happy they're around.

I loved the combat in all of the Baldur's Gate games. Planescape is good to. I dont agree with Stix888 saying the combat sucks.

Never had I seen such a stupid post during my time here. What I saw from the OP's post was basically "The Witcher sucks because it doesn't conform to what I believe a RPG should be". It is ok to dislike The Witcher, but you have to understand that RPGs are like candy. Candy comes in many different flavors and everyone has their favorite. No one in their right mind would say "everyone should make candy in this flavor, no exceptions" what are the people who like all the other flavors supposed to do, eat candy they don't enjoy? Hell no, candy is supposed to be diverse so almost everyone can enjoy it.

*I don't know how good that metaphor was but I gave it a shot*

The fact is most RPGs have a balancing act with both story and combat/gamplay despite what you think it is perfectly alright if a RPG is more about story.

Look mass effect games sell, way more then the witcher lets be honest here

http://www.1up.com/news/mass-effect-2-week-sales

I'm talking about games as a business and I'm saying part of the reason they're having piracy conniptions is because they think they made an awesome game and I'm saying 'it's just not that awesome and if you don't reach people like me who are gameplay first you will limit your audience'.

Mass effect hits the gameplay audience correctly whether you hate action games or not because action gamers are a bigger audience then rpg and that's a fact. So it totally makes sense since my letter is to them, not to you.

The combat in RPG's still sucks, I'm not saying they can't make games like the witcher. I was making suggestions in that they have to have games people want on their service or gamers like me will pass them by.

Everyone is out defending their games but I'm not talking to them, they can like CD projekts games. I'm saying that the gameplay sucks and people who like the witcher are basically people who dislike gameplay because they are story first kinds of people. They are really all about aesthetics and emotions over mechanics.

I lol'd. Thanks for making my day you stunted slime.

Alright Cpt Obvious, I guess you totally missed that "pandering to the masses" part in my post. You act like just because a game wasn't made for you it shouldn't exist. Don't you think that's a little preposterous? There will always be niche games - dunno how niche you can call the Witcher games though - and others of all shapes and sizes. Does that mean I'm going to like them all equally? Hell no. There a plenty of games old and new I don't like and will never like. So I don't play them. Big deal! There's plenty more where they came from.

Your argument is becoming more and more pointless.