Boooooo! – The Witcher 3 Delayed To 2015

That ominous mountain is now retroactively symbolic of a very long wait.

It was all going to be so simple. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt was set to come out toward the end of 2014, and I was going to tear into it like a ravenous wolf cub, all fur and fang and aggression, no hesitation or 9-5 desk job or mortgages I should be worrying about. But that, sadly, is no longer the plan. CD Projekt’s open-ish world opus has been pushed into 2015. It’s all in the name of making the best game possible, but… oh jeez what is this entire freshly sliced onion doing in my eye? It’s getting in the way of all that bitter sobbing over The Witcher 3 I was going to do.

CD Projekt explained the sudden delay in an open letter:

“We’ve created a story that flows naturally, cinematically, rendered it in amazing sound and visuals, while preserving full freedom of choice – all for you. We knew this to be an ambitious plan, but believed we could achieve it by bringing together our team with its creative energies and current gaming platforms with their technical capabilities. A project this vast and complex would inevitably require special care in its final stages, manual fine-tuning of many details, thorough testing time and again.”

“We recently reexamined what we had achieved thus far, and faced a choice about the game’s final release date. The decision we made was difficult, thoroughly considered, and ultimately clear and obvious. We could have released the game towards the end of this year as we had initially planned. Yet we concluded that a few additional months will let us achieve the quality that will satisfy us, the quality gamers expect from us.”

As a result, Geralt is packing his beards bags and riding off into the distant reaches of February 2015.

It’s unfortunate news, but I have to laud CDP for the decision. The Witcher 3 is looking downright colossal, and shipping with a few moving parts out of place could cause the whole thing to come tumbling down. I mean, we’re talking about a fully explorable world 50 times the size of The Witcher 2. And it’ll of course be stuffed turducken-full of quests within quests and NPCs and a metric boatload of brooding (and also boats). You can’t just toss those ingredients into a boiling pot and call it a day. You’ve got to measure and re-measure and re-re-measure until everything is perfect.

So now we wait. The Witcher 3 was easily my most anticipated game of 2014 (and perhaps the only triple-A thing I was really looking forward to), so that’s a downer. Guess I’ll go replay Witcher 2 again. Are there any super great mods for it that I shouldn’t miss?


Top comments

  1. LunyAlex says:

    There there Mr. Nathan.

    We'll be undertaking magically imbued, morally grey, fur physics enhanced, super extra bugless quests in no time.

    *Awkwardly long hug*
  1. Lemming says:

    Hey at least it isn’t an ‘early access alpha’.

    • TheVGamer says:

      Oh god, I can already see Fallout 4 heading to that godawful service. EA can suck my balls.

  2. natendi says:

    Saaaad panda :(

    Understandable if it needs some more work but was super excited for this after finishing 2nd playthrough on Iorveth’s path with some different decisions!

  3. Anthile says:

    Well, it’s going to be better for it.

    • BTAxis says:

      No. It’s going to be just as good as they intended all along, it’ll only take longer to get there.

  4. Zenicetus says:

    Well, looking on the bright side, I might have a faster computer by then. So that’s something. And kudos to them for doing it right.

    Takes some pressure off DA:Inquisition too, I imagine. I’m still very skeptical about that one, based on what they’ve shown so far, but at least they’ll be first out of the gate and won’t have to suffer a direct comparison.

  5. nimbulan says:

    Better late than an unfinished/buggy game. You can’t erase a poor launch from people’s memories.

  6. Lukasz says:

    What that means for cyberpunk? it supposed to be in 2016. if it is pushed to 2017….
    goddamnit…. im going to be 32 years old when its released.

    • Armante says:

      It will be alright, young one. I’ll be 46 and still gaming. I just hope halflife 3 is released before I turn 50..

      • Cinek says:

        Be glad if it gets released while you still can sit down in front of computer and play games on your own.

    • Darth Gangrel says:

      Lol, I’ll also be 32 in 2017 (my 29th birthday is this month :D), but I think I’ll still have some of my old backlog left when that occurs, so it won’t be a tedious wait. I also plan to read the Witcher books during that wait.

    • Ringwraith says:

      They’re a separate team though.
      Besides, that had the release date of “when it’s done”, as when they announced it they were still in the process of assembling a team for it.

  7. Paul says:

    I am glad for this. It will give me more time to:
    – re-read entire 7 book saga
    – get translated new Witcher book Season of Storms and read it
    – re-play Witcher 2 for a third time and prepare savegames for import

    Plus it will give change to Dark Souls 2 and Dragon Age 3 to win GOTY, which they could not had Witcher 3 come out this year. And instead of 95% metacritic of Witcher 3, we will get 99%. So, yay.

  8. FurryLippedSquid says:

    Gives me more time to sell my cow at market for magic beans, grow a beanstalk, and steal that fuckin’ goose so I can finally upgrade.

    • KwisatzHaderach says:

      Wouldn’t it be easier (and quicker) to just steal the devil’s three golden hairs? But that would mean you’d have to put up with his wife… I’ll go get the beans too.

    • guygodbois00 says:

      Sounds like The Plan to me.

  9. Maxheadroom says:

    Try as i might I just cant get into the Witcher games. I just find the main character to be a pretentious swaggering cock. Tried a few times and just bounce off them.

    • jerf says:

      He is certainly not a pretentious swaggering cock, though I sort of can see how some people can get this impression if they spend some very limited time with these games. I recommend you to overcome this impression and try to go further, and then you’ll lose it. Also, reading the books by Sapkowski will certainly help to understand Geralt’s character. By the way, the books are very good, and don’t serve as spoilers for the games: the events of the first game happen after the events of the last book.

    • Zenicetus says:

      Geralt’s a jerk, but he lives in a sordid and dangerous environment. I just saw him as a product of that environment, and went with the flow.

      It didn’t feel much different than reading a novel centered around an antihero (with the inevitable Heart of Gold, or at least Sense of Duty). Like one of Richard K. Morgan’s novels, for example. But I can understand why that might not have universal appeal.

      • Kong says:

        Geralt is as much a jerk as myself. Witcher is a game where I play a character who is trying to figure out what the fuck is going on. Very real.

        Sexism? The sorceress in the King’s service earns less money than a sorcerer would? Do a real world check about sexism.

        Edit: sry, comment slipped to the wrong comment. Jerk and sexism mixed up

    • LevelHeaded says:

      Not to mention the games are sexist garbage.

      • shaydeeadi says:

        The Witcher has some very strong female characters, so I’m not too sure what you are talking about.

          • jerf says:

            Clearly, you have no idea of The Witcher’s characters.

          • LevelHeaded says:

            What does that have to do with that shitty game?

          • Don Reba says:

            That’s, uhm, very poorly drawn.

          • KwisatzHaderach says:

            What’s wrong with No One Lives Forever? {:§

          • shaydeeadi says:

            That is an awful comic, I’m glad you think it reinforces something.

          • pepperfez says:

            All these people are wrong: Every time the phrase “strong female character” is used, that comic must be mentioned. Maybe when everyone is sick enough of the dumb comic they’ll stop using the dumb phrase.

          • shaydeeadi says:

            Interesting that neither you or level headed feel the need to articulate your opinions and just throw in sweeping generalizations. What would you prefer, brilliantly realized female characters? averagely boobed female characters?

            The Witcher games (and books) contain numerous prominent, powerful and respected female characters that all have their own story and impact on the story. I’m not quite sure what else you want out of it, I’ve played both games and fail to see how it can be dismissed as sexist garbage, especially when all level headed can do is link to a barely decipherable comic that looks like a monkey smeared some shit on a page and photocopied it, scanned it and threw it on the internet while the rest of the time posts stupid one liners at people who are trying to engage in a semi reasonable debate.

            I wish this topic could be discussed without people with shrieking superiority complexes saying nothing at all on entirely unrelated articles. I also am going to replay TW2 soon, so there.

          • Shooop says:

            Anyone who bothered reading your posts just lost IQ points, they were all so devoid of any amount of intellect and/or reason. At no time did you even attempt to make a thought-out, constructed point.

            Go back to /v/ where you belong cretin.

      • jerf says:

        Are you saying that seriously? If you are, let me reply. The games are Medieval-styled realistic dark fantasy. The real Middle Ages were utterly sexist, and you just can’t aim for a realistic game of that genre without this being a part of it. That said, there are a lot of strong female characters in the Witcher games. Triss, Philippa, Saskia, Ves, Shani, just to name a few. They just act and are depicted in a realistic way. Hell, the lodge of Sorceresses is arguably the most powerful geopolitical force in that world.

        Or you’re just referring to the cards from The Witcher 1? I agree that they are inappropriate, but calling the game a “sexist garbage” just because of this is a serious overreaction. Also, in the second game there is no such a thing.

        • LevelHeaded says:

          But my verisimilitude!

          • Spakkenkhrist says:

            If you have a valid point you’re expressing it in a terrible way.

        • AngelTear says:

          Just as an aside, I find it a bit contradictory to say that “it’s fantasy” and yet “it wouldn’t be realistic enough if it wasn’t as sexist as the actual Middle Ages!”

          Either one argument or the other. Either it’s striving to be realistic or it isn’t, and since it clearly isn’t, what with all the magic and stuff, it can do what it want with gender roles as well, while preserving the medieval aesthetic.

          • jerf says:

            No, it can’t do what it wants with gender roles. The setting has to be consistent. You can’t be consistent and just say that “okay we have a setting just like the real Middle Ages, except for some magic available to certain rare individuals, monsters, and, well, the society for some magical reason is not sexist”. Modern morality and standards didn’t magically appear in an instant, they have reasons to their existance, which couldn’t have appeared before industrial and postindustrial ages.
            So yes, the setting _can_ be both realistic and fantasy. It just has to be self-consistent.
            By the way, I recommend watching this video: link to

          • AngelTear says:

            I watched the video and I don’t quite understand how deeply it is related to what I said.
            (Besides, I wouldn’t call a hero story such as The Witcher’s, realistic in the same sense as the books he showed, precisely because the protagonist is an irrealistic hero in an irrealistic “saving the world” plot – the books he calls “realistic” deal with common, poor-to-average people and their problems, and they were realistic partially because they took place in roughly contemporary settings, in opposition to more epic plots precisely as that of the Witcher)

            I stand by my point. You’re writing the story, so you can make the world exactly the way you like it. And no, not every plot that represents a sexist society is sexist (and I haven’t played enough Witcher to know where I stand on it specifically), but, purely as an argument, applied to any kind of storytelling, Witcher included, to say that “it couldn’t have been different” is never ever true, unless accurate historical representation is an essential part of the story. In fiction we accept a lot of things that are way more far-fetched than a non-sexist society, without them ruining the atmosphere.

            Additionally, by your argument, who knows how all the magic elements of the Witcher would have affected that world’s fictional morality and their standards, maybe they had to fight the monsters so badly that they had to put sexist gender roles aside because of practical needs e.g. they needed more people to act as guards.

          • Philomelle says:

            No, it uh. Can do whatever it wants. That would be because it’s been very anachronistic in the first place. The Witcher novels were written heavily as social satire and much of the games keeps that angle. It’s why the human/elf conflict is a very thinly veiled representation of racism, why Shani behaves like an average med student and why Geralt’s deeply entrenched nobility is so heavily covered in bitterness. It’s a modern world that looks and pretends to be a dark fantasy one, and it uses the fantasy setting to safely discuss those problems.

            It’s true that Witcher needs to have sexism, racism and other unfortunate things in it to maintain its identity of Witcher. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with it being “medieval fantasy”. It has everything to do with it being social satire that lambasts human stupidity and prejudices from the POV of a character who knows the world is bullshit, but is wary of judging it or becoming involved because it could make him a part of the problem.

            And yes, it’s darn good heroic fantasy on top of it. It’s just not in any way trying to be “authentic medieval fantasy” and never did.

          • joa says:

            The world without sexism that you would like to see depicted sounds fucking dull and clinical. The human race is a sexual one – our competition, our drive to excel and gain power – all of our base desires come from our need to be sexually reproductive. Our drive to do anything in life comes from this. Your ideas about a world without gender roles or whatever may be well intentioned, but they are not very well thought through. A large part of our identity as humans comes from sex.

          • Shooop says:

            I can see the case for the first game being sexist because of the utterly ridiculous trading cards, but the second?

        • Bradamantium says:

          Now I wouldn’t call it sexist garbage, and I’d say it has a good handful of well-realized female characters, but just because it’s a medieval setting and there was sexism in medieval times doesn’t mean it needs to be present here. There’s also mutant monster slayers, oodles of fantastical monsters for them to slay, and straight up magic. Which, unless History is being a jerk and keeping the good bits to itself, didn’t exist.

        • MartinWisse says:

          The number of medievaloid fantasy series that won’t allow strong roles for women yet do allow potatoes…

        • tnzk says:

          “The real Middle Ages were utterly sexist.”

          God have mercy on us all. It’s not exactly fringe scholarship anymore to know that not only were women in the Middle Ages not oppressed, in many ways they performed better because they were treated with equal dignity derived heavily from Christian ethics.

          Elizabeth I decisively shaped England.

          Hildegard von Bingen was a Renaissance Man before Leonardo da Vinci made it cool.

          Catherine of Siena was a simple nun who was a massive influence in European politics, and even got the Pope to move house because she said so.

          And then there’s Joan of Arc, the teenage girl who commanded the French army.

          None of those women had to ever get their tits out to get things done. In fact, they might have all been virgins.

          And I do think they make more an impression than the past century’s lineup which includes the likes of Marie Curie, Gloria Steinem, Virginia Woolf, and Angela Merkel.

          Long story short, let’s make RPS the place where people do some research before saying silly things.

          • silentdan says:

            “not only were women in the Middle Ages not oppressed, in many ways they performed better because they were treated with equal dignity derived heavily from Christian ethics.”

            Um … citation needed, and naming several prominent figures who largely or completely avoided oppression doesn’t count. That’s like someone in the future saying of our times, “not only were dark-skinned Africans not oppressed, in many ways, they performed better because (reasons.) Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Maya Angelou, Kanye West, I could go on. There was no racism in the 20th/21st century.” Tell me about how in the Middle Ages, women could leave abusive husbands and still expect to live a relatively normal life, outside of a convent. Tell me about the numerous female generals who led great armies to victory, because I’m pretty sure Joan of Arc was the exception, not the rule. Tell me about the great queens who took the throne even though a male heir was available, because if it’s men-first, women-only-if-we’ve-got-nothing-left, then that’s oppression.

            Seriously, I might be wrong about this, and I’m genuinely open to receiving new information on this that I can look up and verify, but this just contradicts most of what I’ve learned over the past 20 years, so I need a bit more to go on than some notable exceptions.

      • Kong says:

        the Witcher’s world is working with real world realities kiddo. The only fantasy elements in the Witcher’s world are monsters like trolls and giant spiders. That’s why it is successful, why mature players like it.

        We are living in a sexist world. Our world is brutal. War seems to be a state of mankind. Equal pay for women still a dream.

        Witcher 2: “Lesbo magic” lol. Fuck it, the game comes from a country dominated by catholic morality. Enjoy.

        • LevelHeaded says:

          Wow, so world-weary. And male.

        • LevelHeaded says:

          We live in a shitty sexist world so making shitty sexist games is just fine, kiddo!

        • AngelTear says:

          Yep, when I think of trolls and giant spiders, the first thing that comes to mind is “mature”.
          As for the rest I wanted to say, Levelheaded ninjaed me. Also, see my comment, above.

          • Kong says:

            Geralt is male and so am I.
            Until I met a lesbo group playing – was it Doom 2? – LAN games I believed only boys played computer games. Some of the lesbians looked like the average girl.
            I can imagine women playing the Witcher. The title sure makes him attractive. A ficticious fantasy male whose professional title derives from a commonly known female noun.

            Surprisingly many female students at my English literature class loved LotR, the books. Maybe 20 years later some of them love to become Geralt the seducer of sorceresses. Secretly.

          • The Random One says:

            That was a brilliant Chewbacca defense Kong just deployed. A sterling tactic to make your gibberish close enough to the point being discussed that you’d need a double/triple/quadruple take just to realize that the gender and sexual orientation of people he met while growing up playing games does not follow the discussion at all. Are you a real lawyer?

      • Blackcompany says:

        Yes, there are sexist characters in the Witcher universe.

        No, the game is not about those characters. It does not focus on those characters. They are there to give the world a certain…feel. An atmosphere. One that, for once, runs deeper than just appearances in a video game.

        I know the ‘sex cards’ in the first game were somewhat…well, sexist. Or well, I see how people might have thought so. Me personally, I neither approve of them or find them offensive, but I certainly will not speak in their defense. That said, Please, try and make a distinction between games containing sexist characters, and sexist games.

        • Kong says:

          Maybe we have a different definition of what is sexism.

        • LevelHeaded says:

          It’s a sexist game. You are a sexism apologist, like Kong.

          • AngelTear says:

            I can’t recall who I am repeating here, but you certainly aren’t as LevelHeaded as you’d like us to believe, are you?

            It’s fine to argue for your point of view, but it would help if you actually argued for it. Just telling other that what you think is the absolute truth, without reasons to back it up, and trying to make them feel like idiots with your tone is not going to help further the discussion, it’s just going to make everyone castling passive-aggressively around their former opinions.

          • Kong says:

            Kong is a big ape.
            Computer games are for male kids.
            Sex sells.

            My society is sexist.
            Do I fight sexism?
            It is my conviction that women should get equal pay for equal work. Sadly, the majority of my country votes for conservatism. It has been that way since I was able to spell democracy. Women do not get equal pay for equal work in my country. That is sexism.
            Women give birth to children. Do they get payed for the time they spent being pregnant when they could not go to work? Sexism?
            A computer game where I who likes to roleplay a male who is collecting pictures of hits with tits, does not change the character of western society. Nor does the howling about games with sex in them.

            Edit: no REPLY button visible to me. New comment necessary?

            Edit 2: sorry fellows, no REPLY button. As much as I would like to discuss this, I cannot without the darned button.
            Funny, I may still edit here…

            Edit 3: @LevelHeaded
            Payed? Please excuse me, the English language is not my mother’s tongue

            Edit 4: @AngelTear
            The discussion about media and art and facts of life are like discussing the egg and the hen. Who made who?

            Edit 5: @Bradamantium
            the game reflects on problems of real life. Sexism is just one of them. Violence another. Slay the Troll or let him live?
            A matter of perspective and mood perhaps

            Edit 6: shades of grey. Fuck me. My eyes have become weak

          • AngelTear says:

            @Kong Saying that something is “possibly not ok, but there are bigger problems” is not a valid answer, it’s evading the question. There are always bigger problems.

            Not to mention that representation in fiction and real life conditions often go hand in hand, and influence each other.

          • Bradamantium says:

            That’s mostly a matter of perspective, and while you don’t *need* to defend your perspective, it’d probably help you a bit here. There are certainly sexist elements, and the game can be summed up as “problematic” as a result, but the game is not irredeemably sexist to all possible perspectives.

          • LevelHeaded says:


            “Payed”? You’re sexist and illiterate?

          • joa says:

            LevelHeaded your argumentative bullshit style of talking to people is fucking tedious.

            In fact I think you’re most likely a male troll trying to make feminists look bad. Really, they’re perfectly capable of doing that themselves.

      • tormos says:

        So Levelheaded your style is abrasive enough that I almost argued with you as a knee jerk reaction but you do actually have a point here, especially about Witcher 1 and the Sex Cards. I do think that there’s a distinction to be made between “work that portrays sexism/has sexist characters” and “work that is sexist”, but I think that The Witcher actually falls into both (I haven’t played the second one so I couldn’t really comment). That said we RPS-ites tend to leave the nastiness to the sexist jerks, as a helpful reminder that they are the side that is wrong.

        • Deano2099 says:

          The game shows some (relatively tasteful) artwork when you have sex. Rather than try and do the awkward BioWare thing. That artwork happens to be on a card. In other games, and in Collectable Card Games, we associate cards with the process of collection. This is an external bias we are bringing in to the game.

          There’s no mechanic in The Witcher that tracks the number of cards you have. There’s no mechanic that lists which characters you got a card for and which you didn’t. There’s no achievement for getting them all, or even any notification you got them all. All that happens is a little heart appears on the character profile you can click to see the card. Now, were there so much as ’empty’ hearts on the profiles of characters who you could get cards for, but hadn’t yet, I’d agree that in gameifying the sex into a collection game, it becomes hugely sexist. It doesn’t do that though. There’s no ludic element to the cards, no notion of collection at all.

          The game itself… well it’s a bit sexist as it’s told from a male point of view, but no more than most other games. The problem is that it’s also a very sex-positive game, it portrays sex as something that both the protagonist and his partners enjoy a lot. It portrays women as people who want sex (not people who have to be made to ‘give it away’).

          The problem is, when you take the average ingrained games industry sexism (inappropriate dress, male protagonists) and put it in a sex-positive game, that doesn’t shy away from dealing with sex, it appears to amplify the problem. But it doesn’t. People just can’t see past it.

          • joa says:

            So being told from a male point of view makes something sexist now? Amazing :)

          • Deano2099 says:

            Yes, in the strict sense of the word meaning favouring one sex over another. Any game with a single protangonist is going to swing one way or the other, but in aggregate the number of games (and films, and TV shows) with male leads is hugely biased.

      • El_Emmental says:

        LevelHeaded is a troll who wish JW would ever reply to his messages and emails, don’t bother with him people…

    • derbefrier says:

      yeah they are pretty games but fairly average RPGS. never saw what all the fuss was about myself. Oh and the combat is terrible and the story…not the worst i have seen but not that great either. People seem to love it though to each his own i guess. maybe its the boobs that make it so popular?

      • Lukasz says:

        The story… It wasn’t clean fantasy like LOTR, Forgotten Realms stories. Even Dragon Age was more black and white.
        here you had shades of grey. Each characters was not one dimensional goodie or baddie. their motives were much more complex than just kill all elves/save all humans or kill all humans/save all elves. Even the main bad guy was not really evil while took wrong action he did have a point.
        You rarely see that in video games. Each side of the conflict being right and wrong at the same time.

        • Ringwraith says:

          Yeah, the Witcher II is arguably better in that regard of showing a more grounded story of such a style.
          Heck, the game allows you to hear out a ‘bad guy’ then gives you the option of walking away.
          Though by the time you get to the end of the first game, it also muddies the waters of the motives of the guy behind it all anyway.

  10. Phoenix says:

    I consider this good news, really.

  11. Kong says:

    As long as it is polished when sold I don’t mind if it gets released 2016.
    After Egosoft’s fuckup my taste for digital gaming is somewhat thunderstruck. If another highly anticipated product from central Europe sucks ass I will consider moving to Colorado mountains spending the rest of my days in a hut without electricity.
    Anyone with a Bioware paladin’s haircut will be shot on sight when trespassing on my premises.

  12. knowitall011 says:

    do they realize that my expectations have now gone up a notch? no pressure!

  13. Premium User Badge

    Bluerps says:

    Oh, thank god. Now I might actually find the time to play the first two games before the third one comes out.

  14. LunyAlex says:

    There there Mr. Nathan.

    We’ll be undertaking magically imbued, morally grey, fur physics enhanced, super extra bugless quests in no time.

    *Awkwardly long hug*

  15. Niko says:

    I’m totally ok with that because Dark Souls 2.

  16. Blackcompany says:

    Whatever the reason for this decision, I think it will benefit CDProjekt Red immensely to hold off. This year we will see:

    -Dragon Age: Inquisition
    -Dark Souls 2
    -Wasteland 2
    -Pillars of Eternity
    -Watch Dogs

    And we get to watch both TESO and Wildstar flail about before dying miserable, lingering, free to play deaths to boot. Its a crowded year abnormally full up with RPG’s/ARPG’s. Good, solid ones from the look of things. And those are just the games we know about already. Who knows when Kinetic Void or Limit Theory might be ready to play.

    So yeah…a dead month in the winter of 2015 is probably a very good idea at this point. Especially if it was looking like development needs would push it to the holiday season, when literally every other game on PC is on sale for cheap.

    • AngelTear says:

      I know it’s technically right, but it feels extremely weird to me to refer to February 2015 as “Winter 2015”.

    • newc0253 says:

      I agree. I can’t wait to play Witcher 3 but between DA3, Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, and Dead State it will be difficult enough for me to find time to play all the major CRPG releases this year, so the respite is welcome.

  17. ffordesoon says:

    Something something Bugthesda something something REAL RPG something smug laughter

  18. C0llic says:

    Mods for the Witcher 2:

    There is the combat rebalance Mod, made by the developers. I haven’t tried it out, but its probably worth a look. Its linked an RPS post somewhere, so it should pop up when searching for the Witcher 2 tag.

    • Zekiel says:

      I did quite a bit of research on the combat rebalance mod a while back (when I was thinking of doing a replay) and concluded it probably wasn’t worth it. There were a lot of criticisms saying it did some good things, some bad things and also introduced some bugs. :-(

  19. belgand says:

    My backlog has gotten to the point that I’m always glad to hear of games being delayed. I already have at least a hundred or so that still need to be played. I’d even relish the entire industry just taking a year off. Quietly working away on things and busily polishing and improving them, but no new titles being released. A nice break to let us all finish what we already own.

  20. Zorlan says:

    I am happy to see the game delayed rather than be released buggy. Good decision, CDPR! Delay it to Q4 2015 please, then we’d really get an insanely polished game – perhaps worthy of the title most polished and best game of all time?

    Looking forward to playing it when it’s ready! :)

  21. Fomorian1988 says:


    On the plus side, though, if Wasteland 2 and Pillars of Eternity come out this year, there’ll be no dilemma about which RPG to play. Also, Batman.

  22. ViktorBerg says:

    I’m okay with the delay.

  23. lordfrikk says:


  24. Darth Gangrel says:

    Booooo? Yaaaayyyy, I say! Now I have even more time to play the other Witchers as well as the rest of my backlog.

  25. TheTingler says:

    The perfect news to dig into my soul as I read the just-released-on-its-way-now English translation of Baptism of Fire, the fourth Witcher book that I just yesterday got my long awaited “now shipping” email for. Aargh.

    Sigh. It’ll be for the best. 2014 was already a massive feast of RPG goodness so we’ll still have plenty, although I’ll feel sorry for missing out on the main goose course.

  26. Shooop says:

    So 2014 will be devoid of large-scale games worth playing.

  27. sonson says:

    The Witcher comic is out next week. I was hoping it’s publication was a teaser for the release date (It’s scheduled over the next five months, so would have been about right for start of Q4) but still.

    I’ve never been as excited about a game before married to the belief that the publishers have the ability to do it. CDPR have escalated in terms of ambition and execution more or less precisely as they have promised since the release of The Witcher.

    If it comes close to what they’re promising then it will be a genuine moment of progress/greatness in gaming. The First Open World Game which is as geuninley seamless and limitless and narratively massive as the term implies.

  28. Megakoresh says:

    Well at least I will have time to properly play Dragon Age Inquisition. Here’s hoping it doesn’t suck.

  29. dogsolitude_uk says:

    Great stuff!

    I’d hate the game to be rushed, half-finished and buggy with broken mechanics. They should look after it and polish it until it shines. I can happily wait :)

    Sometimes projects take longer to deliver than anticipated, and rushing things through results in misery for everyone involved.

  30. Thoma says:

    I am actually more than happy to wait an extra couple of months if it means better quality. Looking forward to it and I hope it will have something similar of a collector’s edition as Withcer 2 had. Pre-order/day 1 purchase for sure.

  31. Cortes says:

    CD Project RED disappointed me very much. I really want to play in The Witcher 3 on this year. But now i must waiting a few months longer… A lot of time has passed when i last play in W2. Why they are undecided?