CD PROJEKT RED and regarding Nudity and Sex and Sexuallity and the overzealously Censoring.-FeedBack

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
Censorship is something a Government does, Sony, Microsoft, CDPR (private enteritis) where not at any point ordered by a government to remove anything from the game. they did what the felt was optimisation for the market they where launching a product in to (sick) did it make a lot of stuff seem more neon liberal than Cyberpunk? sure, was it an artistic and commercial choice make largely freely? (internal debate on the decisions not withstanding) Yes. you not liking it is not the same as it being Censorship.
 
Bingo.

This is happening because they took the company public, it's that simple. Their shareholders don't care about anything but maximizing profit. Rockstar/Take-Two is still a privately owned company so they can do what they want, CDPR could do that when they made Witcher 3 because they still had full control at the time. Now they no longer have control and we saw what that looks like with the launch of CP2077 so I no longer trust them to make good creative decisions.

With CP2077 They wanted to make a game with mature themes but they also want to sell as many copies as possible (because shareholders) and they can't do that if it gets banned in certain countries, hence the censorship. So anyone expecting things to change in the next game should probably put that out of their mind.

In fact the next Witcher game will 100% be heavily censored compared to Witcher 3.

No, it's not.

First, you are wrong about Rockstar and Take-Two. Rockstar is a subsidiary of Take-Two. In other words, it is owned entirely by Take-Two. Which IS a publicly traded company. It has been trading under the NASDAQ since 1997. By investing in T2, you are effectively investing into all of their subsidiaries because they own and control those subsidiaries.

Secondly, folks, let's make things clear once and for all. This kind of narrative that blames investors for everything is born out of people being completely uneducated on corporate structures and what kind of power shareholders actually have over companies.

Going public does not mean you relinquish power over your company. It can but more often than not, it does not mean that at all. Most companies are smart enough to structure things so that they essentially retain control on everything. Might be a few extra hoops to jump through but you still get final say.

CDPR has nearly a 100 million shares. We know for a fact that almost 34% of those are owned by the same people who controlled CDPR when TW3 was being developed and they controlled more of it back when development decisions for CP2077 were being made.

Now I can already hear people going "but they don't control their company with 34%!". Theoretically, you're correct but have you ever tried getting a group of, say, 50 individuals to agree on a single thing? It's a fucking nightmare. You go ahead and try to do that with thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions. The simple fact is that when you are publicly traded with that many shares, a 30% share essentially means you get final say on everything.

At 30% control, unless you do something incredibly stupid, the chances of that other 70% banding together to overrule you is ZERO. It basically means you control the outcome of pretty much any voting that takes place.

"But they have fiduciary duties to investors!". Yes they do! But that doesn't mean what people think it means. It means they have a duty to look out for the shareholders' best interest. The form that this takes is, in reality, very much up to the company. All it really means is they can't go against shareholders best interests. In other words, don't make decisions you know will end up hurting your investors.

Furthermore, the majority of shareholders are not lizard people who don't care about the companies they invest in. Yes, some of them may be lizard people (looking at you Zuckerberg) and some of them definitely don't care as long as they see a return on their investment but the majority are far more interested in their investment doing well so they can benefit from them for longer periods of time. Not to mention that many actually believe in their companies' missions/goals/products.

TL: DR - People subscribe to this idea that shareholders ruin everything because they saw this opinion somewhere and liked it. In reality shareholders don't have nearly as much power as people think they do in CDPR's decisional process.

I feel a bit dumb, but can someone remind me what kind of content we got in TW3 and which is "censored" in Cyberpunk?
I scratch my head, but I don't see it... bad memory I guess :D

Right?

I guess all it takes is a bunch of NPCs walking around being labelled as "prostitute" with a bit more cleavage showing to know a game isn't being "censored"?

It apparently makes the game more mature too.

Censorship is something a Government does, Sony, Microsoft, CDPR (private enteritis) where not at any point ordered by a government to remove anything from the game. they did what the felt was optimisation for the market they where launching a product in to (sick) did it make a lot of stuff seem more neon liberal than Cyberpunk? sure, was it an artistic and commercial choice make largely freely? (internal debate on the decisions not withstanding) Yes. you not liking it is not the same as it being Censorship.

You are confusing two very different things.

A private company can censor you. A government also can.

The difference is that a lot of countries around the world have laws against government censorship. That's generally where people get confused. They think free speech means free speech everywhere but it really only means your government can't control your speech* but private entities are (generally) allowed to censor you if what you want to say is not something they want on their platform (whatever shape that takes). Censorship is only the act of suppressing XYZ because you don't want XYZ to be seen/heard.

For example, if I was to speak of some political subject here and the mods deleted my post, they would effectively be censoring me BUT since it's a privately owned forum, CDPR gets to decide what can and cannot be discussed here. It's still censorship but it's legal. Change the moderator to a government official and it's now illegal in many countries.

EDIT: To be clear, I am not saying CDPR censored anything. I don't believe they did. For something to be censored, it first has to be put out there. If CP2077 was, at some point, full of sex and they had removed it all of sudden, sure they'd be censoring the game but that's not what happened.

*With various exceptions generally based around hate speech or other kinds of potentially dangerous situations. Yelling "FIRE" in a theater will get you in trouble and isn't protected under free speech folks.
 
Last edited:
There were plenty of creative choices made with Cyberpunk and Phantom Liberty that stand out to me - but I'd be banned if I got into them. So I just won't, other than to say that they weren't so blatant and over the top that they stopped me from enjoying the game.

But the two things I will say is the lack of a new romantic partner or 'fling' in Phantom Liberty was not at all like CDPR based on their previous games. I found that puzzling and there were even multiple opportunities where this easily could have happened and they just decided not to pull the trigger. I think that is a bit bizarre and a betrayal of what they have formally done creatively.

I also found the small amount of joy toys or sexualized BDs in the base game/expansion to be odd. The Witcher 3 is in a typical fantasy type of world and there were more prostitutes and sex than in Cyberpunk. So that was... weird.

I don't really have to have romance, sex, etc. in my games. But given it is CDPR, given the setting of Cyberpunk and the themes of the universe I found that to be odd and a bit immersion breaking.
 
o_O What's going on here?... Some of you would like to make CP2077 into a sort of a porn game or what?.. This game has a photo mode, you know, yes?..
And maybe is what you call self-censorship just a matter of taste. For example I found the sex scene Alt with Johnny really good, i dont need to see more details. it was perfect for me, for me it was good taste.
 
o_O What's going on here?... Some of you would like to make CP2077 into a sort of a porn game or what?.. This game has a photo mode, you know, yes?..
And maybe is what you call self-censorship just a matter of taste. For example I found the sex scene Alt with Johnny really good, i dont need to see more details. it was perfect for me, for me it was good taste.

Who is saying it needs to be a 'porn game'?

The Witcher 3 had more sex and relationships in it than the hyper-sexualized world of Cyberpunk 2077. Was The Witcher 3 a "porn game"?
 
I dont mean you, pliskards, sorry:)
No Witcher is not a porn game and CP is not a porn game . Thank god! :)
Post automatically merged:

The Witcher 3 had more sex and relationships in it than the hyper-sexualized world of Cyberpunk 2077.
Yes, your right. There are too few joy toys in CP if you look at this whole future world an ads and people and compare. More joytoy would fit better in this world.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not.

First, you are wrong about Rockstar and Take-Two. Rockstar is a subsidiary of Take-Two. In other words, it is owned entirely by Take-Two. Which IS a publicly traded company. It has been trading under the NASDAQ since 1997. By investing in T2, you are effectively investing into all of their subsidiaries because they own and control those subsidiaries.

Secondly, folks, let's make things clear once and for all. This kind of narrative that blames investors for everything is born out of people being completely uneducated on corporate structures and what kind of power shareholders actually have over companies.

Going public does not mean you relinquish power over your company. It can but more often than not, it does not mean that at all. Most companies are smart enough to structure things so that they essentially retain control on everything. Might be a few extra hoops to jump through but you still get final say.

CDPR has nearly a 100 million shares. We know for a fact that almost 34% of those are owned by the same people who controlled CDPR when TW3 was being developed and they controlled more of it back when development decisions for CP2077 were being made.

Now I can already hear people going "but they don't control their company with 34%!". Theoretically, you're correct but have you ever tried getting a group of, say, 50 individuals to agree on a single thing? It's a fucking nightmare. You go ahead and try to do that with thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions. The simple fact is that when you are publicly traded with that many shares, a 30% share essentially means you get final say on everything.

At 30% control, unless you do something incredibly stupid, the chances of that other 70% banding together to overrule you is ZERO. It basically means you control the outcome of pretty much any voting that takes place.

"But they have fiduciary duties to investors!". Yes they do! But that doesn't mean what people think it means. It means they have a duty to look out for the shareholders' best interest. The form that this takes is, in reality, very much up to the company. All it really means is they can't go against shareholders best interests. In other words, don't make decisions you know will end up hurting your investors.

Furthermore, the majority of shareholders are not lizard people who don't care about the companies they invest in. Yes, some of them may be lizard people (looking at you Zuckerberg) and some of them definitely don't care as long as they see a return on their investment but the majority are far more interested in their investment doing well so they can benefit from them for longer periods of time. Not to mention that many actually believe in their companies' missions/goals/products.

TL: DR - People subscribe to this idea that shareholders ruin everything because they saw this opinion somewhere and liked it. In reality shareholders don't have nearly as much power as people think they do in CDPR's decisional process.



Right?

I guess all it takes is a bunch of NPCs walking around being labelled as "prostitute" with a bit more cleavage showing to know a game isn't being "censored"?

It apparently makes the game more mature too.



You are confusing two very different things.

A private company can censor you. A government also can.

The difference is that a lot of countries around the world have laws against government censorship. That's generally where people get confused. They think free speech means free speech everywhere but it really only means your government can't control your speech* but private entities are (generally) allowed to censor you if what you want to say is not something they want on their platform (whatever shape that takes). Censorship is only the act of suppressing XYZ because you don't want XYZ to be seen/heard.

For example, if I was to speak of some political subject here and the mods deleted my post, they would effectively be censoring me BUT since it's a privately owned forum, CDPR gets to decide what can and cannot be discussed here. It's still censorship but it's legal. Change the moderator to a government official and it's now illegal in many countries.

EDIT: To be clear, I am not saying CDPR censored anything. I don't believe they did. For something to be censored, it first has to be put out there. If CP2077 was, at some point, full of sex and they had removed it all of sudden, sure they'd be censoring the game but that's not what happened.

*With various exceptions generally based around hate speech or other kinds of potentially dangerous situations. Yelling "FIRE" in a theater will get you in trouble and isn't protected under free speech folks.
So you are saying that the disaster launch was not influenced by the shareholders taking CDPR under pressure to release the game?… if so everything what happened back in history was only CDPRs fault and theirs alone?

just pointing this one out because it was the argument back in the days for everything what happened hmm…
 
Who is saying it needs to be a 'porn game'?

The Witcher 3 had more sex and relationships in it than the hyper-sexualized world of Cyberpunk 2077. Was The Witcher 3 a "porn game"?
See my previous comment. At times, in my opinion, Witcher 3 honestly felt like adolescent soft porn. I have no problem with sex in games, but it felt to me at times incredibly tacky and utterly gratuitous. Not Yennefer etc, (that develops a story, although using her as lingerie clad bait in the introduction is frankly offputting and gives a terrible first impression of the game's tone), but some of the more overdone cut scenes with "random girl of the quest".
 
So you are saying that the disaster launch was not influenced by the shareholders taking CDPR under pressure to release the game?… if so everything what happened back in history was only CDPRs fault and theirs alone?

just pointing this one out because it was the argument back in the days for everything what happened hmm…

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Whatever your stance on the launch and everything in between then and now, it was all CDPR executives making these decisions.

That's not to say that it's a simple "greedy executives, grab the pitchforks!" narrative either. Very few things are as black or white as most people make them out to be. Regardless of any mitigating factor that might or might not exist, there is no evil shareholders pulling the strings behind the scene and taking control away from CDPR execs.

See my previous comment. At times, in my opinion, Witcher 3 honestly felt like adolescent soft porn. I have no problem with sex in games, but it felt to me at times incredibly tacky and utterly gratuitous. Not Yennefer etc, (that develops a story, although using her as lingerie clad bait in the introduction is frankly offputting and gives a terrible first impression of the game's tone), but some of the more overdone cut scenes with "random girl of the quest".

While I don't agree on Yennefer being used as lingerie clad bait in the intro (I saw this more as a very normal moment of intimacy between a couple in the comfort of their room) I can only agree with the rest.

Most of the sex and "relationships" in TW3 felt very juvenile. I also don't get this argument of TW3 had more relationships. There were only two relationships. Yennefer and Triss. People seem to conflate having a relationship with being in a relationship. Like Shani. You can have sex with Shani but you have a relationship with her, you're not in a relationship with her. Being able to have sex with her felt more like CDPR just figured people would want to have sex with her so let's allow them. Then there the whole arc about Yennefer being mad you had sex with her best friend (despite your memory loss) and Geralt being very apologetic about it but somehow you can have a relationship with her and all those other quickies and he's not conflicted about it at all.

These extra "romances" were handled in a terribly juvenile way.
 
Last edited:
Some of you would like to make CP2077 into a sort of a porn game or what?

I simply said that this game was inconsistent and restrained compared to Baldur's Gate 3. That's not wanting it to be a "porn game." Baldurs Gate 3 isn't a porn game, it just happens to be more consistent and bold than this game. Larian is like how CDPR used to be. This game is inconsistent and restrained even compared to The WItcher 3.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Whatever your stance on the launch and everything in between then and now, it was all CDPR executives making these decisions.

That's not to say that it's a simple "greedy executives, grab the pitchforks!" narrative either. Very few things are as black or white as most people make them out to be. Regardless of any mitigating factor that might or might not exist, there is no evil shareholders pulling the strings behind the scene and taking control away from CDPR execs.



While I don't agree on Yennefer being used as lingerie clad bait in the intro (I saw this more as a very normal moment of intimacy between a couple in the comfort of their room) I can only agree with the rest.

Most of the sex and "relationships" in TW3 felt very juvenile. I also don't get this argument of TW3 had more relationships. There were only two relationships. Yennefer and Triss. People seem to conflate having a relationship with being in a relationship. Like Shani. You can have sex with Shani but there no real relationship here. Being able to have sex with her felt more like CDPR just figured people would want to have sex with her so let's allow them. Then there the whole arc about Yennefer being mad you had sex with her best friend (despite your memory loss) and Geralt being very apologetic about it but somehow you can have a relationship with her and all those other quickies and he's not conflicted about it at all.

These extra "romances" were handled in a terribly juvenile way.
I don’t think this is true - shareholders have indeed some kind of influence on companies - like tencent got on blizzard for example with banning chinese esports player and other propaganda stuff.

it’s like you said it’s not black & white - it’s fifty shades of grey. And CDPR is no exception if you like it or not. After all it’s all about the money, money, money
 
o_O What's going on here?... Some of you would like to make CP2077 into a sort of a porn game or what?.. This game has a photo mode, you know, yes?..
And maybe is what you call self-censorship just a matter of taste. For example I found the sex scene Alt with Johnny really good, i dont need to see more details. it was perfect for me, for me it was good taste.
Porn is a genre of film. Wanting a more mature and realistic approach to sex in a videogame is not wanting to make the videogame into a porn game...FFS.
 
I don’t think this is true - shareholders have indeed some kind of influence on companies - like tencent got on blizzard for example with banning chinese esports player and other propaganda stuff.

It's also important to understand that different companies have different structures that may allow shareholders to have greater influence. I did mention in my previous post that more often than not companies create structures that allow them to retain control. That doesn't mean they all do. It's the way CDPR is structured that changes things.

That's not to say Tencent did have that kind of power. Tencent had a 5% share in ABK. Their power to influence decisions was extremely limited. I know a lot of players jumped on the bandwagon to blame Tencent for this but the reality is far more likely because Blizzard didn't want to antagonize the Chinese government and lose access to the Chinese market because it's humongous. Not because a company holding a 5% minority share forced them to.

it’s like you said it’s not black & white - it’s fifty shades of grey. And CDPR is no exception if you like it or not. After all it’s all about the money, money, money

But here is the thing, it's always been about the money lol.

That's the thing people don't seem to get. CDPR has always been about the money. Private or publicly traded, that fact was always true. Marcin and Michał founded CDPR to make money. Larian was created to make money. Take Two was created to make money. They all were created to make money. Do they want to make great games that are remembered for decades to come? Absolutely! So that they make even more money. It's the whole point. Private or public, there is no difference. The end goal is same. Money.

This is going terribly off-topic though.
 
See my previous comment. At times, in my opinion, Witcher 3 honestly felt like adolescent soft porn. I have no problem with sex in games, but it felt to me at times incredibly tacky and utterly gratuitous. Not Yennefer etc, (that develops a story, although using her as lingerie clad bait in the introduction is frankly offputting and gives a terrible first impression of the game's tone), but some of the more overdone cut scenes with "random girl of the quest".
Yeah, I agree with @GrimReaper801.
The "intro" is a dream and so, I can easily imagine Geralt dreaming of finally have a bit of (good) time with Yennefer after spending a good while in Velen searching for her with Vesimir as the only company :giggle:
For the rest, I agree with you too.
 
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Whatever your stance on the launch and everything in between then and now, it was all CDPR executives making these decisions.

That's not to say that it's a simple "greedy executives, grab the pitchforks!" narrative either. Very few things are as black or white as most people make them out to be. Regardless of any mitigating factor that might or might not exist, there is no evil shareholders pulling the strings behind the scene and taking control away from CDPR execs.



While I don't agree on Yennefer being used as lingerie clad bait in the intro (I saw this more as a very normal moment of intimacy between a couple in the comfort of their room) I can only agree with the rest.

Most of the sex and "relationships" in TW3 felt very juvenile. I also don't get this argument of TW3 had more relationships. There were only two relationships. Yennefer and Triss. People seem to conflate having a relationship with being in a relationship. Like Shani. You can have sex with Shani but you have a relationship with her, you're not in a relationship with her. Being able to have sex with her felt more like CDPR just figured people would want to have sex with her so let's allow them. Then there the whole arc about Yennefer being mad you had sex with her best friend (despite your memory loss) and Geralt being very apologetic about it but somehow you can have a relationship with her and all those other quickies and he's not conflicted about it at all.

These extra "romances" were handled in a terribly juvenile way.
I think the problem with Yennefer in lingerie is not so much that it is story irrelevant -- it isn't -- but what it says to a new player that a developer *would choose to make that essentially the first thing you see in the whole game*.

It was so unappealing as a tone setter for what the game to come would be that I actually quit when I saw it, with no intention of playing the game through (bear in mind that this whole premise lingers for actually a very long time for a new player because this is the moment the game teaches you how its controls work). To me as a new player, it painted a picture of a sleazy game made by sleazy developers, in which I had no interest, because true context to justify that shot only comes much later in the story.

I only picked it up again a year later after seeing more acclaim for it. That, I guess, is the danger of first impressions.
 
Last edited:
crass fetishized posters of trans people.
Let's be real the most famous transgender people other than Elliot Page and Bruce Jenner are pornstars and raunchy entertainers like Jayne County .

If anything, the game mostly ignored the prevalence of transgender people in the sex industry. In a game that heavily focuses on characters who are pornographers and prostitutes the writers really took a PG-13 approach with Claire and Jago, who are the only named transgender characters.

The Raymond Chandler Evening mission would've been more impactful if Pepe's wife was biologically male instead of just secretly getting cosmetic surgery. But I guess they didn't want Pepe to be mad at his wife for something more plausible in reality.
 
Porn is a genre of film. Wanting a more mature and realistic approach to sex in a videogame is not wanting to make the videogame into a porn game...FFS.
Hi, of course I exaggegate a little with "porn game". But what you wanna see in the game that would be "more mature"? I dont get it. You mean fully explicite nudity in sex scenes or what?. Ok and then?.. Someone can misuse it with the photo mode. And then CP2077 became a porn picture generator. You dont want it. Im sure :)
 
Hi, of course I exaggegate a little with "porn game". But what you wanna see in the game that would be "more mature"? I dont get it. You mean fully explicite nudity in sex scenes or what?. Ok and then?.. Someone can misuse it with the photo mode. And then CP2077 became a porn picture generator. You dont want it. Im sure :)
Erotic photography is also not porn. I see no issues with capturing an intimate moment between two ppl. I do it myself through modding, focusing more on the emotions of the moment rather than the act itself.
 
Yeah, I agree with @GrimReaper801.
The "intro" is a dream and so, I can easily imagine Geralt dreaming of finally have a bit of (good) time with Yennefer after spending a good while in Velen searching for her with Vesimir as the only company :giggle:
For the rest, I agree with you too.

Heh, I remembered that scene as a memory not a dream but thinking back on it, you are right, it was a dream. I clearly haven't played in a long time.

I think the problem with Yennefer in lingerie is not so much that it is story irrelevant -- it isn't -- but what it says to a new player that a developer *would choose to make that essentially the first thing you see in the whole game*.

It was so unappealing as a tone setter for what the game to come would be that I actually quit when I saw it, with no intention of playing the game through (bear in mind that this whole premise lingers for actually a very long time for a new player because this is the moment the game teaches you how its controls work). To me as a new player, it painted a picture of a sleazy game made by sleazy developers, in which I had no interest, because true context to justify that shot only comes much later in the story.

I only picked it up again a year later after seeing more acclaim for it. That, I guess, is the danger of first impressions.

I can't say I saw that scene from the perspective of a new player. I mean, of course there was point where I was new to TW3 like everyone else but I was a long time fan of both the games and the books and immediately recognized Yen. The scene immediately made sense to me.

I must admit I am curious about why it paints a picture of a sleazy developer for you. Note that I'm not trying to change your mind or even argue your position. This is really just trying to understand a perspective that's very different from mine. Even *trying* to imagine myself coming into the game as a fresh to the series/world player, it wouldn't be something that comes to mind from that alone. And certainly not make me drop the game immediately. It is just lingerie and some pretty vanilla lingerie at that. I also assume that from context alone, and the fact it's the third game in the series, most new players would likely assume there is some deeper bond between those two. Even the conversation that immediately follows points to that.

Again, just trying to understand a different perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom