Just as an FYI, I never did any of these things and still got approached by the tax man in Oxenfurt while playing the expansion. So if you go there, there's a good chance you'll run into him.
Also, I'm perfectly content to have the series end where it did. There's always a temptation to do "just one more game" in a successful franchise, but there's something to be said as well for a sense of closure.
IF I was to make a 4th Witcher game, what I would suggest is picking up after this ending here:
Ciri is now empress of Nilfgaard. However, Kaer Morhen has more or less fallen and the Witchers are slowly dying out. At one point, Letho was going to try and revive the Viper school with NIlfgaard's sponsorship and that was his payment for assassinating the kings of the north. Why not have Geralt, with Ciri's sponsorship, try and do the same and revive the Wolf school?
Only this time no assassinating needed. Rather, this time perhaps the threat is dealing with fending off assassination attempts against Ciri or threats to her reign. The game could be more intrigue driven.
Game of the Year. Hands down. Hell, game of the decade. I'm sure there will be some MGSV fans or Fallout fans or whomever who will disagree, but for me Witcher 3 is a pantheon level game.
Also, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE how this line:
"If anything, The Witcher 3 proved the point that players are more interested in longer games," he said. "Now, especially, you hear so many people talking about how the AAA games industry is there and nobody wants that experience anymore, and here you go--a nice, well-written single-player experience. There's no multiplayer, there's no microtransactions; you get a game, you play the game and enjoy the game, and it's a great success."
I suppose it couldn't hurt to see what EA can do in this area. Lord knows, it might cause Ubisoft to actually put some time and effort into their AC yearly titles or, heaven forbid, actually do something new and different.
Still, this being EA I think I'll take a "I'll believe it when I see it" approach that they'll actually create something good.
Yes, completely cosmetic. But holy crap what a load of crap to actually charge for this. It's like if From Software decided to charge for the "Shake Cape" emote in Bloodborne.
On the one hand, the people who actually are willing to pay this - at those exorbitant prices no less! - deserve to be ripped off. On the other hand, if this is successful then it WILL teach other companies to do it.
Which means that some day maybe From Software really WILL try and charge for the "Shake Cape" animation and others. And those of us who didn't pay money to make this successful in it's infancy will be punished despite not being at fault.
No, it isn't Pay-To-Win, but it's still stinks like hell and shows a amazing amount of cynicism for their customer base on Bungie's part.
This. If there's no pain point then there's no incentive to buy the microtransaction. Having them creates an extremely obvious conflict of interest between having the most optimized progression rate and making the most money.
The game HAS to have frustration factors built right in for there to be an incentive to buy.
Exactly. People complain about microtransactions in every AAA game announcement. Halo is not getting some sort of unique hate boner that other games don't.
And the explanation is always the same "everything can be unlocked in-game without paying" and nobody ever asks the obvious follow-up question, "Does that mean the progression rate was artificially nerfed to incent people to want to buy the microtransactions?"
BeefoTheBold's comments