Is there a single person who doesn't know that investing in software companies is a high-risk, high-reward gamble?
That's WHY people invest in software companies!
Anyone familiar with the software industry knows, it has a total lack of any kind of established professional standards.
Lawyers have a Bar and can get their license to practice law revoked for malpractice. Doctors are under an even more stringent constraint. Construction companies need a license to take a contract to build a building, and they need a permit to do anything at all—then an inspector has to approve their work before the building can be legally sold.
Meanwhile the software industry is completely the wild west, and everyone knows it. There are no official, legal standards that dictate anything at all about how software must be written in order for someone to legally sell it or make claims about it. Even within the software industry itself, it's extremely uncommon for a software company to have any hard requirements of any kind for people they hire to write code.
So, given the fact that people who make software adhere to no common principles or standards, how can anyone in the world legitimately expect that anyone exists at a software company who can make accurate statements about what their software will be ultimately be like at some point in time?
I can buy that someone outside the software industry might not really understand this... but people forking over $$$ to invest in a company that operates in a wholly unregulated sector have no excuse. They knew it was high-risk when they invested. There should not be a legal golden parachute for software investors anytime a launch goes poorly.
People in this industry are all literally trying our best but the people at the top of any software company never have any kind of firm grasp on what the hell is happening. They are herding cats and praying they all use the litter box. When it works out, everyone wins big, but when it doesn't work out exactly as planned, then the high-risk investors can get left holding the bag to an extent.
But they knew that going in!
Ask me how I know...
(I'm an industry veteran, in business software though, but the same principles apply, so I know what I'm talking about.)
BTW I'm not saying there shouldn't be any accountability on behalf of CDPR. I'm just saying they would have had to extremely egregiously and knowingly engage in deliberate, coordinated acts of deception, and I just haven't seen any evidence or signs of something like that. What I've seen is a company that tried really hard to make a self-imposed launch deadline, with mounting internal and external pressures to meet it.
Given the fact that this industry has no accepted standards about how to trigger a launch abort, how do investors think things are supposed to go exactly?
NASA did not know the Space Shuttle Challenger would necessarily explode. Even though there were multiple engineers who tried to convince their managers to abort the launch the day before it blew up. See, the engineers knew it would be colder the next morning than the minimum temperature at which they had tested the o-rings on the solid rocket boosters. But the managers said, "That doesn't prove it will fail," which is technically correct. So they took a risk. And it exploded. But even to this day, the manager whose decision it was, defends his decision because, he says, the history of space flight is one big calculated risk after another, but sometimes you lose and then major changes happen to prevent it ever happening again.
Just like I'm sure CDPR will implement new quality controls and practices to help avoid a bad launch again.
But I don't think this was a case of deception.