I've stated what I think the issue is and you disagree. Why you think that makes me unable to debate is beyond me. I believe you inacurrately assumed a release and you believe it was implied. End of story. Neither of us will convince the other. I'd recommend in the future only taking what CDPR says into consideration, not what you think was implied. It will save you frustration. In fact, that approach will save you frustration in a variety of situations. People and companies may communicate differently than your preconceived notions of how they should communicate. Companies in particular tend to say exactly what they mean, no more. It's just good technique to cover their asses.

PC.

If you have Arkham Knight on PC you're probably going to want to restart The Witcher 3 instead if you finish it any time soon. The game was so freaking broken that WB actually stopped selling it on Steam to try to save face.

They withdrawn it from the shop because Steam Refunds are there :P People would get really pissed and would demand money return. Than would seriously hit WB in the vallet. It was out of fear, not out of care for their customers :P And good. Hopefully they will think twice before rushing poor devs and releasing garbage.

"You can argue semantics all you want." Also, chill.

Personally I don't see how the no DLC this week == we are releasing the patch in its stead.

No DLC was because they went all hands on for the patch and didn't have the time for the DLC. That said I do think it would have been easily handled if they just clarified that point cause there were plenty of folk reading it as release substitution.

All things considered, the better could be to release the PC patch ASAP and to, in the news, say that "console patch has been released and is waiting validation".

You're actually unbelievable. I stated twice that what they said only signifies that they took time off DLC to work on the patch, nothing more (meaning NOT an implied release, oh my God how many times do I have to say this). That's clear, concise reasoning. You've said nothing new nor offered rebuttal to the points I've made. This is getting ridiculous. Address the points I've made or stop posting.

ROFL

And you prove my point without even realizing it. Too cool.. :)

You have, once again, made a statement. And then claimed that statement is 'concise reasoning'. Really?

Are you going to reply to the point I've had to make 3 times now or just continue to post complete uselessness? You assumed something you shouldn't have. Since you can't reasonably respond to the points I've made without conceding that fact, then please, please spare us (me) from more useless posts.

Ok, I'm getting bored with this.

You've made no point. You've repeated the same statement several times now. Remember, the original contention in our debate (and I use that term very loosely) was wether the developer had implied the patch release. There was never any argument as to wether they had actually stated the release would occur. In an earlier post I had pointed toward customer perspective as being a factor when developers communicate. I would expect this to be common knowledge, but this assumption may be incorrect. It obviously is incorrect in this case anyway.

You have offered no reasoning why customer perspective should not be considered nor offered any opposing argument other than to continue to repeat what you believe with no supporting logic.

Math is easy. 2 + 2 = 4

Language has many nuances which I won't even attempt to detail here.

You have repeatedly shown an inability to debate. You get your wish. I'm done posting to this thread.

Thank god for that.

What if it is common core math? you know . . . 2+2=5

You're making things up now. You posted this:

"Did CDPR not mean to imply this? Could language/translation issues all play a part? Certainly possible."

This could possibly be what you mean by referring to customer perspective being considered. That's a stretch. No other reference to this "customer perspective" you apparently mentioned. My guess is they considered the perspective of a customer who read what they actually wrote and who didn't assume more.

What it boils down to is this:
CDPR said we'll release a changelog this week. They also said no DLC because we're hard at work making this patch.
We got our changelog.
You're mad because you ASSUMED patch was to be released this week. You shouldn't have. There was no basis for assuming this. Now you can't admit you shouldn't have assumed this. Is this logic simple enough for you? Or did I lose again by making an actual point?

Go ahead and tell me how complex language is again though, I'm sure literally everyone else missed the secret meaning they laced into their simple statement. Their words matched their actions. You can't ask much more from a company.

Glad you're going to spout ignorance elsewhere. This has been a riot.

Nope, not making things up. My assertion on customer perspective was made on page 3 of this thread. I didn't use the word perspective so I'm sure that's why you can't find it. Given your many exemplified inadequacies I have no doubt context is lost on you as well.

You remind me of something my mom used to say...

you can't argue with a fool.