@catsimboy: I agree. Frankly, I don't think anyone's done the "massively" part of an MMO right at all, Blizzard included. Yeah, you can play with "hundreds or thousands" of other players.....and you still get the same standard "go here, kill those, grab this, come back" quests. The storyline is still the same "chosen one" everyone's been ripping off Star Wars from. All the extra players do is add more problems.

I'd be really jazzed to see a game with the scope of something like WoW or HZD, but where there are maybe only 100 people in a single world, yet allowed to do more WITH it. To make their own factions and not just join a side, but CREATE one, do stuff with both PC's and NPCs. You don't just defeat a raid boss. You take over his dungeon and YOU become the raid boss PvP style.

@Thanatos2k: I'm sorry, I didn't know that all personal opinions of a game were based solely on what Metacritic thought. Especially when, after tossing out the junk 0 reviews on MC, every negative review spoke of the mechanics and controls as being too detracting of the Witcher 1 to make the game enjoyable. But yeah, we must have been wrong, because CDP sure stuck to their guns and didn't change anything about the Witcher over subsequent releases, right? The same controls that are in the Witcher 1, are in Wyld Hunt......right?

@Thanatos2k: I disagree. But again, I see WHY that is the case. Witcher 1 didn't come out a few days ago. It came out during the rise of WoW's Burning Crusade expansion, when people still thought MMO's would be the new standard of video game storytelling. It released six months prior to Mass Effect 1, which would almost reinvent the entire state of singleplayer RPG's. I'm NOT talking about the story here. The story of Witcher 1 and 2 were great, because the story of the Witcher series is great. But the mechanics were, even on the PC, a mashup of MMO and singleplayer ideas. AGAIN however, this was a sign of the times. CDP at the time, did what it thought was best; it tried to blend different styles together, in a unique setting. Not too different from localizing a game from one region to another; making sure things are told and done in a different way to relate to the target audience.

@TucoBenedicto: I'm not trying to say there wasn't PROMISE there. Clearly, CDPR worked out the issues in Witcher 2 and 3. But Witcher 1 had the problems of a studio's first released game....which was true. CDP did mostly third party localizations prior to 2007, and The Witcher series is their only game franchise developed to date(I want to see more of CP 2077 before I say it's beyond the concept stage at this time)

Yes, it did build a fanbase, but a LOT of games have done that with their first offering, only to choke and die in the follow-ups. My point is that if someone offers you the sure thing of a lump sum payout now, it seems a lot more attractive than hoping against hope. Especially when you already HAVE a steady stream of income from book sales. The author didn't get conned. In HINDSIGHT, it may not have been the best financial move, but it wasn't stupid or being the victim of a scam, to have chosen the lump sum.

@zmanbarzel: I wouldn't go that far. They DID give him a choice after all. And, it's hard to say no to money in hand.

The last two games did really start well. But the ORIGINAL Witcher game was a considerably clunky mess. Based on the game's 2007 release, with the abundance of pirated copies and CDPR having to re-release the game a few times, it probably looked wise to have taken the money up front. How do you turn down someone who in 2007, offers you half a million dollars for all the rights for a story you've still got book money coming in from, when the original Witcher is what they have to show for their efforts?

So the first five hours(Which is all that's been allowed to talk about at THIS point) has issues....The first ME, I had issues getting out of Eden Prime....on a CONSOLE! Another game, X-COM: Enemy Within would crash on me after the starter missions on my 360.

Why is this even an issue? If you are listening to the privileged few who are hungry enough for clicks and likes to not-even-half-review a game and bash it for issues that EVERY game has going across multiple platforms, then I would suggest getting out of playing AAA games.

What I find interesting, is that the minister doesn't seem to have actually PLAYED the game. In some of the beta cutscenes(Spoilers BTW) it's described that the Bolivian government DID try to fight off the Santa Blanca Cartel. That's who UNIDAD was first formed to fight. And the SB's pulled out all the stops. They went total ape-shit, and started wiping out the Bolivian Government wholesale, until the government just decided to cede the fight to the Cartel.

So it's not like Ubisoft is saying the Bolivians have no courage. Hell, throwing a fight against a cartel, even before it DOES become a threat, takes real heart.

@7tizz: It was, but for all the wrong reasons. I got suckered by The Division too. I was expecting a lot more diversity in the game, especially considering the vids that were shown. This generation has been the worst at selling one kind of game, and PLAYING another.

If there's any consolation, it's that games like this, are burning away any kind of trust or hope. I'm really interested in For Honor and Wildlands for example, but I won't even bother with a $5 pre order drop on them. I'll wait for reviews I trust, to give me to escoop on the game.

@vanquishre: I think the biggest loss, was dropping the price the day Overwatch was released. Gearbox could have utterly crushed Overwatch on day one had it done what Smite did. Instead of dropping the price, make the game free to play(microtransactions were always coming so there WOULD be a payment model). All the players who bought the game before that day, would be Founders who got EVERY character and map free(Skins and Story DLC could be charged for, again, so there would be a profit making venture for Gearbox) while people who just played the game free, would have to unlock or buy everything.

Had it done that, Blizzard would be really drowning in how overpriced Overwatch would look in comparison. But, GBX did what every MMO tried to do against Blizzard and Activision with WoW: Fight the fight on BLIZZARD's terms, instead of their own. MMO's like Guild Wars 2, refused to take that bait, and have survived, while Blizzard has crushed any other pretenders to the throne.

@edinko: I won't go as far as archav3n, but Daybreak and Smedley have been in a serious bad way since parting ways with Sony. SOE might have been a bit controlling, but they kept a clear course with their games. Now that Daybreak's on their own, I think they're floundering painfully with PS2 and DCUO. Those are the only two games still in operation that have any kind of following.

And then there's Smedley himself, who had to jump ship on Daybreak, after he basically tried to call out Lizard Squad on Twitter, and they stomped Daybreak into the ground over it.

Before Daybreak Game Company, SOE might have been marginally profitable, but at least it had a solid direction on where they were headed. Now things seem rudderless for everyone who goes there and comes out.