​

The Witcher 3 just wrapped up its latest free DLC addition to the campaign, adding new missions along with a new game plus mode. Overall, The Witcher 3 has seen 16 free DLC additions since its launch earlier this year, from cosmetic additions, to further gameplay extensions.

When asked about the offered DLC, Marcin Iwinski, CD Projekt Red co-founder and CEO, had this to say:

"I'd like to extend my thanks to all the gamers who played our game and gave these DLCs a try. Nothing makes a developer happier than seeing gamers have fun with what they created."

"I would really like to see such initiatives become an industry standard rather than an exception to the general rule, and I hope that The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt has set a good example."

SOURCE

This isn't to say that paid DLC will not come to the game at a later date, but Iwinski insists that the additions will offer over 30 hours of new gameplay and continue to expand the overall story of the huge meta that is The Witcher 3.

In most cases with games like Evolve or Call of Duty, these small additions would be paid addons in the form of micro-transactions. Microtransactions have become a growing controversy in the industry over time and seeing some developers shed light in the controversy is refreshing.

How do you feel about CD Project Red's stance on DLC?

 

[KingVamp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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 ---------------------------

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]

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]

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.

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.