Been there, done that, 31 years in the business. I can't tell you how many thousands it takes for CDPR to change a requirement in response to a customer complaint, but it does (and should) take potential new sales (or measured lost sales) somewhere around $100,000 to tie up a developer, QA, tech writer, product manager, sustaining engineer, etc. in the places I've worked.

So unless you can reasonably extrapolate that dissatisfaction to 2,000 or more $45 customers, and address it in a way that you can project will actually satisfy those customers, it just won't happen.

And because you aren't going to do anything with complaints that you acted in bad faith just by porting your game to another platform, those complaints are just a waste of bits.

that beta non sense really gets to me. I think I have said it so many times, I get annoy at my self.

if this game is a beta, 99% of other game releases are alphas. 1% will be betas like witcher 2.

Why do people think that a piece of software is different from any other regular product?
If I buy a vase, and it's leaking water I go back to the shop and replace it with a version without cracks. Software in most cases is not replaceble. So it is the responsibility of the code-writers to sort those "cracks" out. Customers have the right to receive a working product for their money.
On the other hand, people who demand additional features which weren't announced in the front end and then feel betrayed afterwards if they won't get them are the cheeky ones, really.

I won't say that the game is a beta, given how polished some aspects of the game is - details in the world are consistently amazing, good voiceover, good balance in character development, and challenging combat, to name a few.

However several things - lack of 16:10 / 4:3 support (pretty much an industry standard), oil/whetstone not working on silver swords, loss of keyboard control while throwing bombs (a lot of people have experienced this, although there is no reliable way to trigger this), being unable to cast signs for one second after dodge-rolling - does indicate that the game could have used more playtesting prior to release.

Sadly, this seems to be pretty common in games now, e.g. Dungeon Siege 3 has some glaring camera and control issues. There is never enough time to test games rigorously but there is always time to patch things up.

I'm no commerce/economics game, but I think this is a shrewd decision though to release a mostly complete game (although as far as "complete" goes, the standard can vary a bit), get people to buy it (whether it's due to blind faith, due to the company's reputation, or due to the game having good gameplay that people can overlook weaknesses/missing features) -> get funding, and continue work on patches/sequels/DLCs to finish things up.

as a game addict, you should know how good and polish this game is. most games has way more bugs. from your 3 paragraph post, I only found 2 bugs. one of them is so minor that anyone who didn't preorder from amazon won't even notice the whetstone problem. so that leaves 1 bug, the keyboard lock up bug. the slight delay in casting signs after you dodge isn't a bug at all. more like a slight annoyance. I simply don't understand how you can classify that as a major bug.

I can't help but laugh at the last paragraph. :P how can I take you seriously in the future when you post something like this?

Yes, I believe I have acknowledge that.

Please support your statement with proofs.

Whetstone is available to everyone since 1.2. And oils, which I understand to be available in all copies and not part of any DLC, do not work on silver swords too. The non-slight delay in casting signs is an annoyance, I didn't even use the word "major bug" once to describe it.

Please, feel free to explain yourself. Laughing doesn't contribute much to a discussion, contrary to your expectation.

"I won't say that the game is a beta, given how polished some aspects of the game is "
yea, you are acknowledging it alright.

come on now, why waste time by asking me to post the patch notes of other games? you really need it? I mean really?

talk about shooting one's own foot. by giving out free dlcs, cdpr created a small bug. are you sure oils don't work? I been using them :() I side step the whetstone bug by using them on steel swords :PPP if you agree that it is only a small annoyance, why did you bring it up? I don't get you.

does it really need an explanation? read your 3rd paragraph and think about it some more. we are not here to discuss harebrained conspiracy theories. if you want to be taken seriously, don't type anything like it in a serious discussion. laughing is the only and correct response to that type of posts.

No I didn't ask you to post patch notes of other games. If you make an argument like "most games have way more bugs", you must back it up with proof/evidence. I don't consider that to be a waste of time. I think saying something without sufficient reasoning or proof to be more of a waste of time.

Yes, the oils/whetstones don't work on silver sword, and they work fine on steel swords. It is verified by a few forum users. See thread here. Whether or not this bug is caused by a DLC (you were the one who brought up the subject of DLC) is not my concern. The thing that matters is, the said bug exists in the current version of this game. True, it's not a game-breaking issue (but I bet people have been using oils without knowing that they don't work on silver swords). Why did I bring this up? It was one of the examples (along with aspect ratio support etc.) I used to support my argument that the game could use more playtesting.

It's not "harebrained conspiracy theories", but rather a speculation on a possible reason why developers have chosen to release games without sufficient playtesting. Compared to "laughing" at posts to which you are unable to provide counter-arguments, I think what you call "harebrained conspiracy theories" is more constructive.

to back that up, I would need to post patch notes of every game that has more bugs than w2 :P asking for proof in this kind of situation makes you look like what? especially when the answer is so obvious. I will let you figure that out.

play testing really doesn't do anything for the screen resolution. but if the oils really are bugged, than they need to fix it, even if the impact on the game is negligible.

don't speculate in your posts then. you will just get laugh at by posters like me. why the hell would I want to waste my time by countering some random thought, that happens to pop up in your brain?

Whether something is obvious or not, that is a subjective matter. So far you have been unwilling or unable to produce a solid example, and what does that say about your argument? No, regardless of what you think, claiming that "the answer is so obvious" is not an adequate support for you argument.

Well, if they have tested it on different hardware (of which 16:10 screen is pretty common), they would have been like "hey, I can't see the words on the screen". Yes, if you pick on my examples one by one (just like what you are doing now), it seems like all is good, the game is perfect. But if you consider all the issues that is present (my examples are but a tip of the iceberg), you have to agree that the game could use more playtesting.

Your way of discussing purely by "laughing" instead of countering argument is more of a waste of time. And you have been "laughing" for many posts now. I will not stop posting or speculating just because for fear of "get[ting] laughed at by poster like [you]". Why should I? I made some arguments, I support them with facts and observation, making logical conclusions, even if the naysayers tried to shut me down, hey it's still there for all to see.

:p I simply don't want to waste time in providing you with links to patch notes of others games when you can do the googling yourself :P

you need to clarify what you meant by you can't read words on the screen.

I don't get it. what is there to discuss when you present your speculative thought like it is a fact? what kind of response did you expect from a sane poster besides to laugh at you? I repeat, I don't get you. how can you talk about logic, facts and proofs/evidences when you type like that? I don't get you, you are full of contradictions, I simply don't understand how you don't notice it yourself.

Are there even 16:10 monitors small enough for the words to be illegible on? 1024x768 was just barely at that point of illegibility.

Anyway, I played through on 1.0 with two CTDs over the course of the entire game, and no glitches or bugs whatsoever. Maybe it would have been more polished for everyone if they had waited and done additional testing before releasing it, but it worked for a number of people with no problems. I have mixed feelings--on one hand, releasing early does make some gamers into beta testers of sorts so that they can find and iron out the problems quicker. On the other hand, delaying the game to test it themselves would take so much longer, and those who could play the game in it's unpatched state would be unable to do so because of glitches they would never experience.

So I'm glad they released it when they did, even if it wasn't working 100% for everyone, but can empathize with people who experienced a bunch of glitches.

It's not a "maybe", but a "certainly". Not sure if it really takes that long to identify the issues we've seen - like clunky combat (maybe an intended design) can be seen in the prologue. Numerous typos (especially regarding the effects of potions as well as skill description). Keyboard control getting jammed while throwing bombs - I encounterd that in my first playthrough. So yeah, all the signs are there.

The game (even 1.0) is very playable, and well received, as evidenced by the favorable reviews (and to a lesser extent, by the several defensive fans). But I'm just pointing out that there seems to be some issues that wouldn't have escaped attention if someone just spent some time playing through it - not even complete playthroughs, but just testing out various mechanisms to see if they work as intended.

If they had some fresh testers then maybe, but haven't you ever worked on something so long that you become totally numb to it? For example, when producing music you have to listen to the song so many times that the little flaws completely escape you after awhile. I'm not sure they could have realized that those things needed fixing half as fast as they did had they pushed back the release date.

I'm not necessarily arguing against this point. I'm more looking at the end picture, where more people will have a more functional game faster because of all the feedback they got. But yeah, they could have saved themselves plenty of headaches by getting some brutally honest random people to test out the game for them before release, for sure.