GraniteStateColin

This might qualify as off-topic, but because you mentioned a third-person POV in Cyberpunk: while I'd like that for dialog and cut scenes, I'd rather see CDPR add a FIRST PERSON MODE in The Witcher IV like they provided in Cyberpunk 2077. This was almost the only negative I had with the Witcher 3 (the other being all those pirate caches floating the Skellige islands).

I appreciate that CDPR is probably using this difference to distinguish Witcher from Cyberpunk, but I they're great enough with plenty of other obvious distinctions, they could offer both 1st and 3rd person in both games without taking much away from them.

I know it's subjective and personal preference, but I much prefer 1st person for walking around and combat and also prefer 3rd person for dialog and cut scenes so I can see my character's face during those. Because some people always prefer first person and some always prefer third person and because CDPR has proven they can do both amazingly well, they should offer options for both in all their open-world RPGs going forward, just like other gaming companies do who are not as capable as CDPR.

Of all announced but unreleased games, the new Witcher and Cyberpunk games are the games I most look forward to playing. I like the setting and themes more in the Witcher games, but vastly prefer the 1st person gameplay of Cyberpunk. I wish they'd bring that to the Witcher games, but I suspect they'll keep that as a core distinction between these two series. I prefer the way Bethesda handles this and you can choose first or third person at-will. I don't like combat or navigation control in 3rd person (except driving in Cyberpunk -- for some reason, that's easier with the expanded view of 3rd person), but do prefer 3rd person for dialog so I can see my character's face as he or she interacts with other characters.

With CDPR also stating that all 3 games of the upcoming Witcher trilogy (games 4-6) will be coming out over the span of a few years, I'm actually worried that I'll have enough time to play those and the Cyberpunk games thoroughly. I've never before been in a situation where I worried games I most looked forward to playing would come out TOO fast.

This article is wrong, or old. Appearance was connected to what you were wearing at launch, but updates have removed that connection ages ago. Almost all armor and buffs now come from cybernetics, with only a few effects from clothing, but beyond that you can also define up to 6 separate appearances ("Outfits") that each use any combination of clothing you want for your character. These define your appearance and ONLY YOUR APPEARANCE. With any of those, there is literally ZERO connection between appearance (defined by the Outfit) and buffs or game-affecting facets to the clothing you're actually wearing. The ONLY things that affect gameplay that is visible is the weapon you're using. Those can't be remapped through the Outfits.

In other words, Cyberpunk 2077 already provides exactly what the article says would be an important improvement for a sequel. It didn't at launch, but has since before Phantom Liberty.

All of the endings are continuable. They would set up a start to the next game similar to the original life paths. The Sun ending would be the Street Kid start, the Devil ending (on the Arasaka space station, who promised a new body when they can produce it) could lead into a Corpo start, and the Star ending (riding off with Panam and the nomads to get a cure) would be the Nomad start. Even Phantom Liberty's Tower ending could add a 4th Government Agent start. 

All of these leave V in effectively the same place: possibly on the cusp of getting a cure for the Relic. The only difference with the Tower ending is V got the cure, which neutralized V's chrome, which shows the path for all the endings to continue into the sequel.

So, if something similar happens with the cures in the other (non-Tower) endings, all of them set up V to be back to a low-level character, struggling to gain strength, but already self-assured and famous in certain circles. V will carry all the guilt and pain from the events of Cyberpunk 2077, which would make for excellent story and roleplaying.

It may not do as well, but if so, that's unlikely related to Ciri being the protagonist. She was already the player-controlled protagonist for significant sections of the Witcher 3, and within the story, even when the player controlled Geralt, that was largely in a supporting role so Ciri could determine the fate of the world. While the player spent more time with Geralt, Ciri was the driver behind his main quests and ultimately the most important character in the story and the only one able to stop the White Frost.

Plus, plenty of very popular game series have female protagonists -- Lara Croft games, Perfect Dark, Control, Resident Evil, Last of Us Part 2, Senua games, among many more, and then even CDPR's own Cyberpunk where the majority of players apparently played as female V, but I understand you could argue they also had the choice not to.

If The Witcher IV fails, it will more likely be because of poor game play mechanics or lack of compelling characters and story, the same reason any games fail. If there's one place where market data shows that main character gender does not matter, it's for a video game protagonist.

The only reason I could see a market impact from losing Geralt as the main character is unrelated to gender, but rather his unique sense of humor. That was appealing and Ciri will presumably have her own, which might not be as entertaining for some.

It does have that. There's a story difficulty level where it's trivial to drop enemies and V is nearly indestructible, so for people who don't care about the combat, you can focus on the amazing story. The combat is still there, but it's more like watching it in a movie where V is a John Wick, cyber superhero.