What defines "on time"? W3 was delayed before, and it could be delayed again. GTA V was delayed multiple times, including during its port. The impatience of the gamers isn't particularly important, since they'll of course want the game as soon as possible. If "on time" means with respect to the release date, then the date shouldn't have been given prematurely, since delays can then appear negatively. If no date is given, however, then development could continue for however long without any concerns. Regardless of whether a date was given, though, the gamers would prefer a well-designed game they could enjoy without any complaints rather than a rushed product with severe flaws.

Some of the greatest games were ruined by being rushed. The only people to blame for the rushing are the developers or publishers themselves. I don't believe W3 should have been rushed, and I don't consider being "on time" to be a valid concern if the due date was set by them. They decided that, so they placed the limitation. Rather than continuing with poor decisions which would take away from the product's quality, however, CDPR could have simply delayed it or admitted the due date was not enough time.

Where is this third build coming from? I don't see why there needs to be three builds. Both XBOX One and PlayStation 4 could have been confined to a single build since they posed similar limitations and platform unification between them wouldn't seriously impact development. I doubt the two builds would have been much different at all, anyway, so they would have effectively been a single build with added optimization.

The problem is with unifying the consoles build(s) with a PC one, since PC is an entirely different platform that poses far greater challenges. There is the concern of customized and varied hardware (something prebuilt machines like consoles do not have) as well as the lack of any limitations posed by the platform. The only limitations are on the user side based on their systems, so the onus would be on them to be able to play the game. There would be the added challenge of operating system optimization (I don't think OS unification is feasible, if even possible), but since the vast majority of PC users use Windows (and Macintosh computers typically don't have the power to run those sort of games), a Windows build is all that's really necessary.

The problem of platform unification in this particular case is that it unified console and PC platforms under a single build. Platform unification can be fine if it's a unification of console platforms, since they pose similar challenges. PC is an entirely different challenge, however, so any platform unification would cause the PC demographic to be cheated out of a quality game. Platform unification relies on building for the lowest common denominator (i.e., the weakest platform being unified), so PCs—being at the top by a wide margin—will always be thrown under the bus if it is included in the unification.

I don't agree with Iwinski's statements regarding achievable sales. I think he's trying to justify the decision after the fact, since it's too late to change it now and admitting they fucked up wouldn't look too good on their part. Had they built solely for PC, the sales from that alone would be tremendous. It would have received even higher critical acclaim and solidified it's place as among the top three games of the year (GOTY). The publicity it would have received from satisfied PC users, along with all the videos and livestreams which would follow suit, would boost the interest among the console demographics.

Once a console port would be announced, a similar craze of hype and excitement would ensue among console demographics. After release, the sales would have been the same as they projected anyway, except it would benefit from the added publicity and workmanship displayed in the PC build. Unless Iwinski elaborated and expounded on the issue, and he or another broke it down in detail, I seriously doubt that CDPR wouldn't have received the same (if not greater) sales on both PC and console as they did and still do now had they taken the route of porting a PC build to consoles. In doing so, they would have also satisfied their PC customers, validate their reputation as outstanding developers, and prevent all this controversy from occurring. I believe it was a poor development decision on behalf of CDPR to unify the PC build with a console one and to release all three at once as a multiplatform game and I wouldn't be surprised if, years later, they state just that.

I mean even if the PC market is huge, not every PC gamer is gonna buy the Witcher.

The same applies to the console market, except it's only half the size of the PC gamer market.

Pretty much everything you suggest costs money- and that is what they don't have. Actually, when you read the whole article ... they improved some stuff from that older build as well.

I did read the entire article. They may have not had the budget, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have enlarged their budget. There isn't any information or evidence that they couldn't, especially after they showcased their work. Even if they could not and it's true that they couldn't afford a PC build, they should have built exclusively for consoles and used the sales to upgrade via a PC port. It would have been more expensive and more difficult than a downgrade, but it may have been a better tactic.

Even if they didn't have the budget, they should have waited until they could afford proper game development. In downgrading, they made an irreversible decision which will stick to their name for years to come. The only way they could redeem from this is to release a PC patch that completely reforms the game and makes up for all the downgrades. This would essentially be another build anyway, though, and it's unlikely that they will release it free of charge. It would be paid DLC, and that would only make them look worse.

I disagree that the changes are "minute". Comparing the builds will show that a lot of stuff was removed or limited to ensure it worked for XBOX One and PlayStation 4. We have nothing to compare the current product with the potential product had it not been downgraded except for the changelog between the builds and the trailer footage they showed during the big reveal. Given the limitations that consoles pose on game development alone, however, I find it absurd to assume the product wouldn't have been significantly different graphically., since the limitations imposed by consoles wouldn't have been present. That's the entire idea of a "downgrade" here. They did improve some stuff from the older build, but that could have easily carried over. I'm not advocating for the old build to return as-is, but that they should have continued development on that build rather than starting a new one that would work on all targeted platforms.

What I am getting at is that probably someone from PR screwed up ... if it meant that the game would not be made otherwise.

Yes, PR screwed up, but I believe development did as well. I believe the game could have still been made had a different, better course of action been taken instead. CDPR says there wasn't, but that may just be their attempts at justifying their poor decisions.

It's just that they communicated with us poorly - and that is the main thing that is wrong here - that's my main point.

I agree with your point that there was poor communication between development and its customers, but I don't believe that was their only fault. The downgrade itself, and not just their lack of transparency about it, is also a major blow on my (and many others') perception of the company. They claim they couldn't have otherwise afforded it, but I'm not so keen on believing them anymore, and I wonder if they hadn't considered alternative routes. Ironically enough, I refused to believe there was a downgrade until this interview. I believed CDPR instead. Now, I won't even take CDPR's word for it.