CD PROJEKT Group Strategy Update: Long-term Product Outlook

+
i kinda like that they went as far as announcing alot of games now. Im not that suprised tho tbh since i kinda knew they were not going too abandon any franchise. The new triology was kinda suprising but "cp 2078" has been talked about for years already and speculated about. Hopefully there new workflow and UE5 will shorten the development times and with enough training it will make the games better.

I hope there will be no "gameplay" videos untill its all in the engine and running ok tho! Dont show it 2 years before relase either pretty please :)
 
Their commitment to ESG is more terrifying than anything Pondsmith dreamed up.

Diversity and Unity it's called I believe. Someone has summed up the last 24 hours rather well.

"Imagine having an anime studio save your reputation from the tatters it was in, to the point they had to fight you on a tonne of design and writing so as to make it good, to immediately turn around and self sabotage this hard anyway."

I'm interested in the expansion, but I'm not getting my hopes up for anything when the studio producing it is turning into a parody of Demolition Man. I'm glad the game that's there is improving and the potential for modding has increased, but I think we're done here.
 
Is it them that haven't learned or the gamers? This thread is literally called "long-term". It's a roadmap nothing more. If cyberpunk 2077 proved anything it's how little the gaming community understands the actual process of making a game, sprinkled with a sense of entitlement. We need to relax and stop over hyping everything. They clearly stated some of these aren't even in development phase.
I totally disagree. The gamers aren't responsible in any way regarding what happened with Cyberpunk. CDPR is and, to a lesser extent, the specialized press, maybe. But CDPR in the first place. Not the gamers, not in any way. It's a matter of communication, something the company should be able to control and anticipate the resulting expectations.

As you said, some of these projects aren't even in the development phase yet, so what's the point of communicating publicly about it, right now? None, while it indeed is prone to create expectations or, in this case, at this tage, more or less legitimate concerns. Why not wait to have something solid and concrete before communicating about it?
 
Last edited:
I totally disagree. The gamers aren't responsible in any way regarding what happened with Cyberpunk. CDPR is and, to a lesser extent, the specialized press, maybe. But CDPR in the first place. Not the gamers, not in any way. It's a matter of communication, something the company should be able to control and anticipate the resulting expectations.
Devil's advocate :giggle:
Difficult when "somes" completely ignore what you say or arrange things as they want (or consider a video with the mention "subject to change, does not represent the final state of the game" as something promised/acquired).
 
Devil's advocate :giggle:
Difficult when "somes" completely ignore what you say or arrange things as they want (or consider a video with the mention "subject to change, does not represent the final state of the game" as something promised/acquired).

too bad that any "ordinary gamer" guesses that "changes" are in better not in worse, and in addition not in reduction compared to a demo in a raw state...:coolstory:


PS: and reviewing that video only confirmed to me that even 3rd person cutscenes alone would make storytelling twice as good as a pair of harms shaked here and there :facepalm:😂
 
Last edited:
Devil's advocate :giggle:
Difficult when "somes" completely ignore what you say or arrange things as they want (or consider a video with the mention "subject to change, does not represent the final state of the game" as something promised/acquired).
It's a double edged sword though. While I'll agree on people taking "does not represent final state" stuff as guaranteed being pretty naive, I'm asking myself what's the point of advertising for anything that isn't done yet.

Anything that states "doesn't represent final form" suggests "what you see here is given, but we may add even more" in my opinion.

And let's be honest, most of us here are seasoned gamers, we know how things go and we know to keep our skepticism at high alert, but there's plenty of people entirely new to the gaming industry, or people causally enjoying it, who may or may not read an entire flood of articles on the internet hyping up a project, just to find out how a small font disclaimer ruined their first/long awaited experience. I think those people deserve better.
 
too bad that any "ordinary gamer" guesses that "changes" are in better not in worse, and in addition not in reduction compared to a demo in a raw state...:coolstory:
Again, you will say that it's just me, but the warnings "subject to change" and "does not represent the final state of the game" mean exactly what they mean, i.e the game can and will change... Devs can/will certainly remove/add things during the development.

Believe it or not, but during a stream (TW3 anniversary stream, if I remember) CDPR admitted that they started to "build" a whole part with Iorveth (as for Vernon) in The Witcher 3 but finally removed it quite late during the development, because "it didn't work".

And "changes are in better", well subjective... and "guesses" are up to players not to CDPR :D
 
i can't really get excited for this because we know cdpr abandoned it's original roadmap for cyberpunk, cancelled expansions and multiplayer even though those plans were much less ambitious than releasing 5 new witcher games and a new cyberpunk game. so once they are deep into production of orion i'll start to believe that the game won't just be cancelled. also not going to wait for something like last time from 2012-2020 just to get disappointed again.
 
A lot to digest in there, but a few random thoughts:

Don't milk your flagship franchise just because it's successful - that's the fastest way to devalue it. I hope all of these Witcher projects exist because creative people had some really cool ideas, not because management wanted an X-style Witcher game - big difference.

ESG - Similar to the above, really. As long as the creatives are left to tell the stories they want to tell and are hired based on the merit of their work rather than to fill some misguided management-mandated quota, then it's mostly positive changes. That bit about wanting to have certain types of stories with certain types of characters had better be determined by the creative teams, not by company policy.

Imagine having an anime studio save your reputation from the tatters it was in

That's quite the overstatement on several different levels.
 
Last edited:
To summarize it: The CD-projekt stock price is still so low, we lost so much money, we have to do something. So lets exploit the franchise which worked in the past and let´s try to press as much money out of it as possible: Witcher, Witcher and more Witcher. The new CD-projekt does not plan a single Witcher game, not two Wticher-games, no, 5 Witcher games of course (two developed by external studios because cheaper and/or they payed for the license - ah i mean due to the experienced people there of course with support from cd-projekt)! Oh well, and some cyberpunk-stuff to demonstrate that we care about our customers. Still not enough? Hah, if thats not enough, we have also "something else" to offer but we won´t tell. So be excited! Hooray!
Dark times indeed. I really had hope that some of the people in charge learned from the cyberpunk desaster - but no, now they try to sell via quantity instead of quality (risk minimizing)... I expect the products will get worse and worse (fast, uninspired, average stuff) until the Witcher-franchise is finally depleted (and gets bought by one of the big players afterwards).
P.S. The stock price is still low :)
 
Last edited:
EGS - Similar to the above, really. As long as the creatives are left to tell the stories they want to tell and are hired based on the merit of their work rather than to fill some misguided management-mandated quota, then it's mostly positive changes. That bit about wanting to have certain types of stories with certain types of characters had better be determined by the creative teams, not by company policy.

ESG, from my study/observation of it, doesn't allow much wiggle room. It is why Tesla got the boot despite it being about environmentally focused as a company can be and Exxon is in the top 10. They don't view Elon Musk and certain parts of the company as "socially responsible", which is about as subjective as it gets.
 
ESG, from my study/observation of it, doesn't allow much wiggle room. It is why Tesla got the boot despite it being about environmentally focused as a company can be and Exxon is in the top 10. They don't view Elon Musk and certain parts of the company as "socially responsible", which is about as subjective as it gets.
eew that doesnt sound promising...
 
I think cyberpunk needs a way of having multiple character so you can pick what play you want to do. As an example fallout 4 makes it were yo have multiple characters just title the characters when you make it and chose which one you want to play.
 
Few posts are curently under observation and may or may not be (partially) returned later.

In the meanwhile as a general reminder, please remember that you are free to criticize, but also please be polite and constructive while doing so.
 
A lot to digest in there, but a few random thoughts:

Don't milk your flagship franchise just because it's successful - that's the fastest way to devalue it. I hope all of these Witcher projects exist because creative people had some really cool ideas, not because management wanted an X-style Witcher game - big difference.
Nothing says 'moo' like announcing you're becoming Ubisoft two years after shoving an unfinished product out the door.
ESG - Similar to the above, really. As long as the creatives are left to tell the stories they want to tell and are hired based on the merit of their work rather than to fill some misguided management-mandated quota, then it's mostly positive changes. That bit about wanting to have certain types of stories with certain types of characters had better be determined by the creative teams, not by company policy.
I highly doubt that. CDPR's offices would need to become actual wind farms and hydro-electric dams to offset the carbon footprint of merit based hiring and compelling characters.

That's quite the overstatement on several different levels.
I was quoting someone in their summation of CDPR announcing the goal of full ESG compliance. Yeah, it's quite a hyperbolic way of stating the current situation. Edgerunner's didn't literally dig them out of the hole they created for their dev teams, nor did it patch the game, but it did bring a torrent of new players and renewed hype. If 1.5 hadn't happened, youtube would be inundated with fresh meme compilations instead of "IZ THIZ A COM3BACK?!?!" videos. I've given them credit for the work and have expressed gratitude, but the future they've laid out isn't very bright. We will see.
 
Nothing says 'moo' like announcing you're becoming Ubisoft two years after shoving an unfinished product out the door.

I hate Ubisoft - so do not think this is a defense of CDPR "becoming Ubisoft". If that happens - that will be bad.

But I wouldn't mind if CDPR simplified their games some and streamlined them. I personally don't play CDPR games for the combat. I thought the combat in The Witcher 3 was acceptable, but far from great... and it is my favorite game of all-time. I think the combat in Cyberpunk 2077 is pretty darn amazing for an open world shooter.

But if they build up constructs and make their games more similar in order to churn out more story driven open worlds I am cool with that - as long as the story telling stays at a very high level.

For instance I 100% think the next Witcher trilogy is going to reuse a ton of assets, settings, characters, skill systems, etc. in order to try to meet that six year window. I think a lot of the systems they are talking about building are going to feed into that. I think The Witcher 4, 5 and 6 are all going to be very similar games in terms of combat, skill systems and things like that. But I honestly don't really mind that at all - so long as the story is great, characters are interesting and the world is engaging.

What I think will kill CDPR is if they start to churn out games that have no "soul". As in they tell bland, predictable stories with mediocre character work like Ubisoft does... or even if they sink to a Bethesda level of story telling, then they are in trouble. Because what CDPR does best is graphics and storytelling - if they keep those at a high level I think they'll be fine.
 
Their commitment to ESG is more terrifying than anything Pondsmith dreamed up.

Why?

Since there's absolutely nothing controversial in there and commitments eg to encourage more women into game development can hardly be viewed as dystopian (does Blizzard sound like a pleasant and desirable working environment to you?), I can only assume this relates to your own personal beliefs rather than anything wrong with what the company is doing.

Regarding representation in art / entertainment, it's difficult to explain to people who aren't in minority groups how important it is for people to see themselves represented.

In the 70s in the UK there was an entire sitcom devoted to jokes about a black family living nextdoor. I am not black, but how is that going to help black people see themselves -- and be seen by others -- as a perfectly ordinary part of society. Likewise, see Nichelle Nicholls talking about why she agreed to stay on Star Trek despite being the receptionist: because it mattered to have a black woman in space doing a job AT ALL.

I *am* gay, and I can tell you that seeing gay people depicted in entertainment with fully functioning personalities and lives, rather than as the butt of jokes or as people who do nothing but have sex and fuss about being gay as if it were a personality type and the sum total of their character, would have made a world of difference to how I felt about myself growing up. It would also have helped some people who aren't gay get over the absolutely ridiculous and juvenile obsession they have to this day with thinking about gay people first and foremost as what they do with their pee pee parts rather than as human beings.

At the end of the day, [...] whether a character is black or white, straight or gay, whatever, matters about as much as whether they have brown or blond hair. Because underneath the prejudice, we are all the same: we're human beings with the same motivations, the same needs, the same feelings. And if a story is to be interesting, exploring different perspectives certainly helps.

And, yes, you may find it more difficult to relate to a female character, or a gay one, or whatever. But if you do, you have perfectly illustrated what women and minorities feel like every single time they are presented with the generic steroid-pumped white American male with a gun who populates every other game as their "interesting" game hero. It's alienating. It's narrow. It's dull. And it's fake, because that is not any recognisable depiction of the people who live in the real world. If leaving that fantasy bubble makes people insecure or upset, quite frankly the issue more likely lies with them than anyone else and they have some growing up to do.

I'm sorry some people don't like this stuff. I'm sorry some people think it's silly. But not everyone in the world looks like you or feels like you, and it's unhealthy to pretend they should or that they should not be represented. To a great extent, it's that very attitude that makes messages of social inclusion in mainstream media so important. The problem is less with these initiatives than with the backward attitudes that make them necessary in the first place.

PS I'm not even going to start on how important it is for a Polish company to defend these values in the face of Poland's current politics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why?

Since there's absolutely nothing controversial in there and commitments eg to encourage more women into game development can hardly be viewed as dystopian (does Blizzard sound like a pleasant and desirable working environment to you?), I can only assume this relates to your own personal beliefs rather than anything wrong with what the company is doing.

Regarding representation in art / entertainment, it's difficult to explain to people who aren't in minority groups how important it is for people to see themselves represented.

In the 70s in the UK there was an entire sitcom devoted to jokes about a black family living nextdoor. I am not black, but how is that going to help black people see themselves as a perfectly ordinary part of society. Likewise, see Nichelle Nicholls talking about why she agreed to stay on Star Trek despite being the receptionist: because it mattered to have a black woman in space doing a job AT ALL.

I *am* gay, and I can tell you that seeing gay people depicted in entertainment with fully functioning personalities and lives, rather than as the butt of jokes or as people who do nothing but have sex and fuss about being gay as if it were a personality type and the sum total of their character, would have made a world of difference to how I felt about myself growing up. It would also have helped some people who aren't gay get over the absolutely ridiculous and juvenile obsession they have to this day with thinking about gay people first and foremost as what they do with their pee pee parts rather than as human beings.

At the end of the day, any halfway-intelligent person ought to be of the view that whether a character is black or white, straight or gay, whatever, matters about as much as whether they have brown or blond hair. Because underneath the prejudice, we are all the same: we're human beings with the same motivations, the same needs, the same feelings. And if a story is to be interesting, exploring different perspectives certainly helps.

And, yes, you may find it more difficult to relate to a female character, or a gay one, or whatever. But if you do, you have perfectly illustrated what women and minorities feel like every single time they are presented with the generic steroid-pumped white American male with a gun who populates every other game as their "interesting" game hero. It's alienating. It's narrow. It's dull. And it's fake, because that is not any recognisable depiction of the people who live in the real world. If leaving that fantasy bubble makes people insecure or upset, quite frankly the issue more likely lies with them than anyone else and they have some growing up to do.

I'm sorry some people don't like this stuff. I'm sorry some people think it's silly. But not everyone in the world looks like you or feels like you, and it's unhealthy to pretend they should or that they should not be represented. To a great extent, it's that very attitude that makes messages of social inclusion in mainstream media so important. The problem is less with these initiatives than with the backward attitudes that make them necessary in the first place.

PS I'm not even going to start on how important it is for a Polish company to defend these values in the face of Poland's current politics.
Thank you.
 
Devil's advocate :giggle:
Difficult when "somes" completely ignore what you say or arrange things as they want (or consider a video with the mention "subject to change, does not represent the final state of the game" as something promised/acquired).
Yes, you are indeed devil's advocating. And it is wholly unnecessary and unwelcome.
 
Top Bottom