# Witcher 3 Dev: Free DLC should be a norm, not the exception



## Terenigma (Aug 20, 2015)

Good on them for the free DLC packs, iv still not finished the CD content yet but the NG+ is certainly a feature i will be taking full advantage of. I can understand that some DLC that adds new quests or full character costing a few $/£ (Assuming it was not cut from the original game content) but stuff like alternate costumes have no place having price tags. We have a few in witcher 3 and they are great but if it was another game, you would be paying like $3 or £2 for a COSTUME. Its ridiculous and i certainly hope they have set a trend for other companies to follow.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 20, 2015)

nah I don't think DLC should be always free.
But let's stop this pre-order, on disc, day one DLC that you have to pay extra for. Any DLC coming and being developed after the game is out I'll gladly pay money for.
Unless we talk about Destiny.


----------



## wallacepower (Aug 20, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> nah I don't think DLC should be always free.
> But let's stop this pre-order, on disc, day one DLC that you have to pay extra for. Any DLC coming and being developed after the game is out I'll gladly pay money for.
> Unless we talk about Destiny.


 The witcher 3 has paid dlc and they are to be as big as witcher 2 in content.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 20, 2015)

wallacepower said:


> The witcher 3 has paid dlc and they are to be as big as witcher 2 in content.


And that's how it's supposed to be.


----------



## mightymuffy (Aug 20, 2015)

Sadly I can't see the likes of Activision reading this and thinking 'fukkin hell they're right!'....mainly because the average Call of Duty moron has no qualms buying the stuff. My kid bro (shouldn't be saying that, he's 35 now...) is one such individual, and is quite happy to spend over £100 per CoD iteration, and won't bother playing anything else - so as long as cretins like my kid bro exist, we'll continue having micro transactions...

As for day one DLC:
 
Pretty much sums that one up...


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 20, 2015)

Customers are willing to pay for the content so the publishers keep it as it is rather than give them for free.


----------



## Joe88 (Aug 20, 2015)

getting tired of having to wait for "GOTY" editions with all the dlc packed in


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2015)

I never had any problem with Day 1 DLC or on-disc DLC, mostly because I understand what a license is. You don't own games or the content that's on your discs or cartridges - its use is licensed to you under certain conditions. On-disc DLC accomplishes one thing - saves my bandwidth. As a user I get access to a crafted whole of a game and I have to pay to unlock additional features, it's been like this even before downloadable content, especially on PC where often times to unlock the full potential of a program you had to buy a code - it would be sent to you by post and upon entering it your utility would be "magically" upgraded to a Premium or Pro Edition with no downloads required. How? Because the features were all there, just locked behind a paywall. This is not a new concept, people.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Aug 20, 2015)

Wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Free DLC is best DLC.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 20, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I never had any problem with Day 1 DLC or on-disc DLC, mostly because I understand what a license is. You don't own games or the content that's on your discs or cartridges - its use is licensed to you under certain conditions. On-disc DLC accomplishes one thing - saves my bandwidth. As a user I get access to a crafted whole of a game and I have to pay to unlock additional features, it's been like this even before downloadable content, especially on PC where often times to unlock the full potential of a program you had to buy a code - it would be sent to you by post and upon entering it your utility would be "magically" upgraded to premium with no downloads required. How? Because the features were all there, just locked behind a paywall. This is not a new concept, people.


Yeah and it works great on Freeware/Trial Versions. On 60$/70€ Products not so much.
Technically the Stirder Reboot Trial version is the full game and buying the full version a DLC. And it works, you don't have to do a demo, people get to try out for free and if they like it they buy the 34kb file and can play in an instant. But if I spent 70€ on a game and directly on day one there are parts of the game locked away as DLC's I don't really see the appeal of it.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 20, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I never had any problem with Day 1 DLC or on-disc DLC, mostly because I understand what a license is. You don't own games or the content that's on your discs or cartridges - its use is licensed to you under certain conditions. On-disc DLC accomplishes one thing - saves my bandwidth. As a user I get access to a crafted whole of a game and I have to pay to unlock additional features, it's been like this even before downloadable content, especially on PC where often times to unlock the full potential of a program you had to buy a code - it would be sent to you by post and upon entering it your utility would be "magically" upgraded to a Premium or Pro Edition with no downloads required. How? Because the features were all there, just locked behind a paywall. This is not a new concept, people.


If it's on disc DLC then it's not really DLC but just Unlockable Content.

Well, one could say that DLC stands for *D*isc *L*ocked *C*ontent which makes sense.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Yeah and it works great on Freeware/Trial Versions. On 60$/70€ Products not so much. Technically the Stirder Reboot Trial version is the full game and buying the full version a DLC. And it works, you don't have to do a demo, people get to try out for free and if they like it they buy the 34kb file and can play in an instant. But if I spent 70€ on a game and directly on day one there are parts of the game locked away as DLC's I don't really see the appeal of it.


I don't see how offering expansions on Day 1 is bad - if you like the game, you can choose to buy more content for it, but nobody forces you to do so.


WiiCube_2013 said:


> If it's on disc DLC then it's not really DLC but just Unlockable Content.
> 
> Well, one could say that DLC stands for *D*isc *L*ocked *C*ontent which makes sense.


To be fair, I never liked the term "DLC", I feel "Expansion" is a far better name for what is offered.


----------



## vayanui8 (Aug 20, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't see how offering expansions on Day 1 is bad - if you like the game, you can choose to buy more content for it, but nobody forces you to do so.


It really depends on the game. Its definitely fair on some games, but other have locked out rather important content before


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 20, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't see how offering expansions on Day 1 is bad - if you like the game, you can choose to buy more content for it, but nobody forces you to do so.


I'm talking about On-disc DLC right now not Day 1 DLC. There is a clear distinction between the two.
On Disc DLC was built together with the main game but was left out of the game because they would rather sell it as DLC but it's still on the disc.
Day One DLC are often not part of the main game and are being developed in the final stages of development of the game, mostly while the coding and asset team has nothing else to do and they would have to be moved to an other project otherwise.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 20, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> I'm talking about On-disc DLC right now not Day 1 DLC. There is a clear distinction between the two.
> On Disc DLC was built together with the main game but was left out of the game because they would rather sell it as DLC but it's still on the disc.
> Day One DLC are often not part of the main game and are being developed in the final stages of development of the game, mostly while the coding and asset team has nothing else to do and they would have to be moved to an other project otherwise.


Again, the only difference is that on-disc content saves me bandwidth. I don't really care where the expansion is, I choose whether to unlock it or not, see the example of serial codes of the olden days above. If I want access to that additional content, its source doesn't concern me, only its quality does. As long as it's an actual optional expansion and not a clearly missing part of the game, I don't see the issue. Again, you don't own content, you only own a piece of plastic. Another example could be Windows installation discs - they have the complete system on them, but only the modules relevant to your edition of the serial are installed. Accessing the rest is as trivial as changing one config file and getting a serial for a different version, at least as far as I know.


----------



## Maikel Steneker (Aug 21, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Again, the only difference is that on-disc content saves me bandwidth. I don't really care where the expansion is, I choose whether to unlock it or not, see the example of serial codes of the olden days above. If I want access to that additional content, its source doesn't concern me, only its quality does. As long as it's an actual optional expansion and not a clearly missing part of the game, I don't see the issue. Again, you don't own content, you only own a piece of plastic. Another example could be Windows installation discs - they have the complete system on them, but only the modules relevant to your edition of the serial are installed. Accessing the rest is as trivial as changing one config file and getting a serial for a different version, at least as far as I know.


Technically, you are completely right. I don't think the problem with on-disc DLC is a rational issue. Instead, it's an emotional issue that has to do with people paying a lot of hard-earned money and then finding out the experience they got wasn't as complete as they'd like it to be.

Consider a game being released in the N64/PlayStation or PS2/GC/Xbox generation. It would probably be loaded with free neat extras, like extra costumes, bonus stages, etc. At the same time, PC games of that era received updates that made the game run better, added some extra options, etc.

In modern games, the neat content that is created may very well be sold as DLC instead. That is, the content is done, but the developer chooses to sell it instead of giving it away for free. Considering 60/70 dollars/euros is a lot of money, I understand why this annoys people. Other people will even get annoyed at small DLC being sold when it's released after the game has been released, simply because they're used to getting it for free through free content updates.

Some of these views come down to entitlement. At the same time, there is a tendency of publishers to more and more nickel and dime customers that already pay a big sum of money for a game. I think there will always be extremes of the spectrum (The Witcher 3 and Left 4 Dead 2 on one side, Batman: Arkham Knight and Dead Space 3 on the other). Everyone should simply decide which DLC they're okay with, and support that content with their wallet while "boycotting" the other stuff.

To conclude, I think you're right: having DLC already on the disc can only be good for customers, since it saves downloading extra stuff. It's not this practice that gamers take issue with; instead, it's a sign of greedy business practises they don't agree with.


----------



## Steena (Aug 21, 2015)

Free DLC should also be actual new downloadable content, not content you already made, singled it out, and then touted it as additional stuff you're giving out for free to get that sweet positive rep.

While overall CDPR has a better policy than most AAA, they themselves are exploiting the public's misconceptions of "DLC", it's not entirely genuine. It's evident with the day-one release of the free DLC waves. At the end of the day it's just their view on marketing strategy, much like say, ubisoft.

I mean, what the hell is the point of day one free DLC? Why not just include it in the base game? They factually made at least some of the stuff before release, so they cut it out and released as "additional content". They announced specific details about their free DLC plan *18 months before release* - it wasn't like a last-week surprise change, I just checked the news post on their site. Doesn't that just come out as trying too hard to everyone else? That is artificially adding value to your product from thin air by going through a hoop.

It feels like people are accepting to be bullshit to just because the content is free - my personal problem is publishers bullshitting in the first place; "paid" or "free" is another issue that is about determining the worth of the content itself.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 21, 2015)

Steena said:


> Free DLC should also be actual new downloadable content, not content you already made, singled it out, and then touted it as additional stuff you're giving out for free to get that sweet positive rep.
> 
> While overall CDPR has a better policy than most AAA, they themselves are exploiting the public's misconceptions of "DLC", it's not entirely genuine. It's evident with the day-one release of the free DLC waves. At the end of the day it's just their view on marketing strategy, much like say, ubisoft.
> 
> ...


Planned doesn't mean pre-existing. You have to consider that weeks or even months could pass between a game reaching Gold status _(complete and ready for release)_ and actual distribution. First you have to distribute copies to the rating boards across all continents, once rated you have to press the discs and box them, send some to reviewers for media coverage, launch the advertising campaign, send out shipments of the game to warehouses across the globe, distribute the stock from the warehouses to stores and _then_ finally proceed with the launch. All this time can be used for creating Day 1 DLC which couldn't possibly be included on-disc because the on-disc game was already Gold and waiting to be pressed.


----------



## Ericzander (Aug 21, 2015)

I agree that free DLC is great and that a lot of companies rip us off by charging a lot for DLC.  However, when the value is worth it I don't mind having to pay.  Mario Kart 8 has awesome DLC that adds 16 tracks and 6 new characters.  In addition, they add more material with almost every game update for free.  *That *is how you do it.  

Fantasy Life had on disc DLC (on cartridge?) yet the DLC added the entire Origin Island plot (several hours), doubled the level cap on almost everything, allowed you to reach new ranks, created another tier of endgame items, raised NPC intelligence, and essentially doubled the amount of content in the game.  

DLCs like that I have no issue paying for.  DLCs where you pay out a lot of money for not a whole lot of content I have issue with.  At least Amiibos are cute, but they often are an example of the kind of DLC I don't like.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 21, 2015)

Don't think games being a "license", is an excuse for companies to rip you off. Also, forbid that you actually want a game, but can't get it day one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 21, 2015)

KingVamp said:


> Don't think games being a "license", is an excuse for companies to rip you off. Also, forbid that you actually want a game, but can't get it day one.


These are pre-order bonuses, not Day 1 DLC. Companies want to measure the demand for a game before they release it, hence they reward players who are willing to order it early. That, and they generally want you to buy the game new and at the height of its price because pre-owned copies don't get them any money and discounted games rake in less profit. I don't like the practice, but I can see why it's there - it serves functions beneficial for the publishers and the early adopters alike. That said, pre-order bonuses should always be released as separate DLC for those who did not buy the game Day 1 so that everyone has a chance to see all the content.


----------



## Megaben99 (Aug 21, 2015)

I like DLC as a reward to Early adopters-- when a couple weeks after a game drops there is a free DLC for a week or so and then goes to regular price.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 21, 2015)

Ericzander said:


> At least Amiibos are cute, but they often are an example of the kind of DLC I don't like.


They are sorta nice but it's just flatout physical DLC which should've either been included at no extra charge or sold digitally because not everyone likes to get these fucking toys.

On the bright side, you can get the DLC and still sell it back so it's not too bad of a deal.


----------



## Pecrow (Aug 21, 2015)

I bought this game and I have a few comments to make. 

1. Thank you for all the Manuals/Stickers/stuff included, It is always fun to review everything inside the game and recently no games include this stuff, not even a black and white manual. Like really - how much does that cost, 50cents? 

2. The game experience is really fun, and I really like the Free DLCs and they are making a great example!. I wanted to download this game on PC for mods (torrent) but after reading that they were doing the free DLCs I bought it for my PS4. If a company is changing the rules of how things should be I will buy the game. Thank you for the Free DLCs. 

3. The 30-additional hours DLC - I thing it will be okay for them to charge for this as it is not just a "weapon" or "hairstyle" type of DLC, it is over 30 hours of additional gameplay and a lot of work was placed into it and for this, Thank you as well. I believe the price is deserved.


----------



## Steena (Aug 21, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Planned doesn't mean pre-existing. You have to consider that weeks or even months could pass between a game reaching Gold status _(complete and ready for release)_ and actual distribution. First you have to distribute copies to the rating boards across all continents, once rated you have to press the discs and box them, send some to reviewers for media coverage, launch the advertising campaign, send out shipments of the game to warehouses across the globe, distribute the stock from the warehouses to stores and _then_ finally proceed with the launch. All this time can be used for creating Day 1 DLC which couldn't possibly be included on-disc because the on-disc game was already Gold and waiting to be pressed.


That's valid for actually relevant changes to a game, sure. One year and a half planning for one alternative beard texture: just no. Modelers make 50 of them a day to get it right or just experiment and there's hundreds/thousands of unused models in every game. They very obviously picked the second best looking one from the existing pile and released that.

That is just how serialized asset making works. It's simply infinitely more efficient. You don't sit on your ass waiting to be told exactly what to make in a big company, because there are 7 teams before you that need to be 100% certain of what something is going to be like - you make your own modifications/interpretations while you wait for any specific requests. Some of it makes it into the final game. Infact, placeholder assets can become final assets, chances are there is a place for most things, somewhere.

Unfortunately content made like this can (and will, no doubt) be easily released as DLC (worse, paid DLC).


----------



## tbb043 (Aug 21, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I never had any problem with Day 1 DLC or on-disc DLC, mostly because I understand what a license is. You don't own games or the content that's on your discs or cartridges - its use is licensed to you under certain conditions.



Then if you break a disc or lose it or have it stolen, they should have to send you a replacement at cost,  but they never will, because it's only treated as a license when it benefits them, never you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 21, 2015)

Steena said:


> That's valid for actually relevant changes to a game, sure. One year and a half planning for one alternative beard texture: just no. Modelers make 50 of them a day to get it right or just experiment and there's hundreds/thousands of unused models in every game. They very obviously picked the second best looking one from the existing pile and released that.
> 
> That is just how serialized asset making works. It's simply infinitely more efficient. You don't sit on your ass waiting to be told exactly what to make in a big company, because there are 7 teams before you that need to be 100% certain of what something is going to be like - you make your own modifications/interpretations while you wait for any specific requests. Some of it makes it into the final game. Infact, placeholder assets can become final assets, chances are there is a place for most things, somewhere.
> 
> Unfortunately content made like this can (and will, no doubt) be easily released as DLC (worse, paid DLC).


This may be true in the case of most games, but not in the case of The Witcher. Geralt has one canonical look and making a billion additional "serialized models" for him was probably the last thing on the developer's to-do list.


tbb043 said:


> Then if you break a disc or lose it or have it stolen, they should have to send you a replacement at cost,  but they never will, because it's only treated as a license when it benefits them, never you.


Many publishers HAVE disc replacement programmes, Microsoft is one of them: http://support.xbox.com/en-GB/xbox-360/games/disc-replacement-program

That, and taking care of your storage medium is your responsibility - it's called due diligence.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 21, 2015)

Obviously I'm not going to boo out free DLC. But 'the norm' is a pretty broad term in that regard.

For one: DLC is income. Typically for smaller studios and indies, they've blown quite a budget on making the game in the first place. Being morally forced to continue working for free can be a bit tough (this is mainly something for the smaller studios)
Second: not all games require it. If a storydriven game is told in a decent way, adding more DLC (even if for money) may not be the way to go. It's not like all books or movies HAS to have extra's, right?
Third: the business model. No matter how you look at it, free-to-play games simply rely on selling DLC to even make money. It's just stupid to say "you should give it away for free because witcher 3 does it".
Fourth: not all games have easy DLC. On 3D games, creating models and a few missions can be a day's work tops. Some games that require an entire engine to be rewritten will be much harder to adapt to. And true puzzles are harder to design than yet another fetchquest/shoot gallery/<insert other standard quest>.

And lastly: I don't want to play devil's advocate, but is Marcin Iwinski totally honest here? The game is a hit, so they've got their money's worth (I assume). If they break even, it's much easier to give away freebies. I wonder if he would've said the same thing if the game did poorly.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 21, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> And lastly: I don't want to play devil's advocate, but is Marcin Iwinski totally honest here? The game is a hit, so they've got their money's worth (I assume). If they break even, it's much easier to give away freebies. I wonder if he would've said the same thing if the game did poorly.


That's a interesting point. I believe you are right about that.


----------



## Steena (Aug 22, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> This may be true in the case of most games, but not in the case of The Witcher. Geralt has one canonical look and making a billion additional "serialized models" for him was probably the last thing on the developer's to-do list.


Not only has geralt's look subtly changed throughout all the games (of course, not only technological advancement but also style), but since 2 there was a barber that allows for a multitude of hairstyles.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> And lastly: I don't want to play devil's advocate, but is Marcin Iwinski totally honest here? The game is a hit, so they've got their money's worth (I assume). If they break even, it's much easier to give away freebies. I wonder if he would've said the same thing if the game did poorly.


Then again good content policy helps attracting more customers willing to purchase and not return it after a week. They invested in having the image of the "good guys", it's simply paying off.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 22, 2015)

Steena said:


> Not only has geralt's look subtly changed throughout all the games (of course, not only technological advancement but also style), but since 2 there was a barber that allows for a multitude of hairstyles.


Geralt has only one _canonical_ look throughout the entirety of the book series, the TV show/movie and the games, all additional hair styles are just that - additional. The _"core"_ version of the game does not require any barber/hair stylist options, those are all additional content that's not relevant to the game whatsoever and may as well be DLC.


----------



## Qtis (Aug 22, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> Obviously I'm not going to boo out free DLC. But 'the norm' is a pretty broad term in that regard.
> 
> For one: DLC is income. Typically for smaller studios and indies, they've blown quite a budget on making the game in the first place. Being morally forced to continue working for free can be a bit tough (this is mainly something for the smaller studios)
> Second: not all games require it. If a storydriven game is told in a decent way, adding more DLC (even if for money) may not be the way to go. It's not like all books or movies HAS to have extra's, right?
> ...


DLC is a tricky thing. In many cases before, it was simply updates/patches provided for free when you bought the game. Now it's additional income as you say. Free-to-play games don't necessarily have DLC, they may have purchasable stuff. This is not DLC in my opinion, but I digress.

But regarding the last comment about CDPR and Witcher 3, they announced all the free DLC before the game was even released. It was just not feasible to have the DLC done beforehand as it required time to make. Compare this to delaying the game? No thanks. CD Projekt has been very consumer friendly for years regarding their games. They have quite often given away Witcher 1 and Witcher 2 on GoG (even  purchasing the Season Pass for W3 gave the games for free). In this sense, I think he would still have said the same.


----------

