How rich is CDPR anyway? 
I saw they are bulding a new...building, expanding offices across the world, collaborating with external companies (like Jali, Nvidia, Epic,...), (perhaps licensing the Witcher remake), going parallel development with the Witcher 4-6 and Cyberpunk 2 + the new IP, working with celebrities like Kaenu and Idris, hiring more staff, expanding into anime, etc...building a merch shop, producing own music for Cyberpunk,...
Is there a stopping to it or...?
How much $$$ can they print anyway?
I assume the Witcher 4 will be a huge success, so their value and reach may completely explode.
Don't get me wrong. I like the games they make, but I find it they may become an uncontrollable and unsustainable overlord of general virtual production...
Thoughts?
I saw they are bulding a new...building, expanding offices across the world, collaborating with external companies (like Jali, Nvidia, Epic,...), (perhaps licensing the Witcher remake), going parallel development with the Witcher 4-6 and Cyberpunk 2 + the new IP, working with celebrities like Kaenu and Idris, hiring more staff, expanding into anime, etc...building a merch shop, producing own music for Cyberpunk,...
Is there a stopping to it or...?
How much $$$ can they print anyway?
I assume the Witcher 4 will be a huge success, so their value and reach may completely explode.
Don't get me wrong. I like the games they make, but I find it they may become an uncontrollable and unsustainable overlord of general virtual production...
Thoughts?
Last edited:
You can get a good idea with the result they publishedHow rich is CDPR anyway?
I'm not an expert so I could be wrong, but I assume that for the shareholders :
"Never rich enough" & "Never stop growing"
If you stop growing, it likely means you already have one foot in your grave...
They're in pretty good financial shape, but they're not even close to the magnitude of companies like Sony, Microsoft, Electronic Arts, or Take-Two. I don't think we're in any danger of CDPR becoming video game overlords anytime soon.How rich is CDPR anyway?
I saw they are bulding a new...building, expanding offices across the world, collaborating with external companies (like Jali, Nvidia, Epic,...), (perhaps licensing the Witcher remake), going parallel development with the Witcher 4-6 and Cyberpunk 2 + the new IP, working with celebrities like Kaenu and Idris, hiring more staff, expanding into anime, etc...building a merch shop, producing own music for Cyberpunk,...
Is there a stopping to it or...?
How much $$$ can they print anyway?
I assume the Witcher 4 will be a huge success, so their value and reach may completely explode.
Don't get me wrong. I like the games they make, but I find it they may become an uncontrollable and unsustainable overlord of general virtual production...
Thoughts?
No probability involved, the Witcher remake is licensed to Fool's Theory, which is another studio composed of former CDPR developers.
As for the rest of your question, I think @Spockprime gave a great answer - they have a long, long way before they reach the status of Embracer Group, yet alone giants like EA or Sony.
I also want to add that this is the nature of the game - if players want massive, beautiful video games with high production values, (which they irrefutably do) they have to also accept that the money for them have to come from somewhere. Either they have to come from the resources that company itself generates in terms of revenue and investments or from some massive publisher willing to pay for everything in exchange for running the show. If CDPR has loads money and the company manages to prioritize top tier single player experiences with amazing narratives over short term gains with battle passes in single player or battle royales, then they have my blessing to grow as large as they need, because this is the only way they will be able to maintain a degree of independence.
Between now and TW3's final DLC launch, the business has gone in directions I personally dislike, in the name of growth and bigger margins. They've not done anything disagreeable enough for me to stop paying attention altogether, but enough to discourage me from supporting them as much as I once did.
On the topic of players "irrefutably" wanting "massive, beautiful video games with high production values": Personally, I'll always take a game from a smaller team with a stronger vision (fewer cooks and all that) over a diluted mega production trying to account for all tastes in order to make a good RoI, where each individual contribution is just a drop in the bland ocean.
On the topic of players "irrefutably" wanting "massive, beautiful video games with high production values": Personally, I'll always take a game from a smaller team with a stronger vision (fewer cooks and all that) over a diluted mega production trying to account for all tastes in order to make a good RoI, where each individual contribution is just a drop in the bland ocean.
Wow. What are these directions?
What's your opinion on the CP77 and the Witcher 4 developments and timelines then?
Regardless of what individual people say, players as a collective absolutely want games with huge budgets - or at the very least want things that these budgets can buy, like great visuals, full voice acting of talented voice actors, beautiful orchestral music. Sure, there are a bunch of mega-hits made by several people - or even one person - but there is a reason why games like Baldur's Gate 3 or Witcher 3 brought way more players than their predecessors or some of their contemporaries.
I'll bite.
The vast majority of arguments I'm hearing against triple-A studios is that it's always "more of the same." Often, game mechanics, level design, character design, dialogue, etc. has been done that way before. Many times. Everyone's seen it. Often enough, it's been done better in the past, so it's like being served cold leftovers.
Gamers (have always) want(ed) innovations. Trouble is, innovations are not guaranteed to be a hit. The more money I dump into a project (as a producer) the fewer risks I'm going to be willing to take. If it doesn't go well, there's a huge chance that investors will cash out early. I won't be able to fund future projects, and I'm probably going to put a bit of a hole in my career to boot.
Hence, the more money a "big studio" puts down on a project, the less likely innovations will be given a chance. Studios are full of artists that want to create really cool experiences. Producers are full of people that need to make a big enough financial return to stay in business.
And viola, the indie scene! Small studios that are in kind of the same position as every video game studio in the 1980s and 1990s: barely funded, trying to make due with whatever technology they can get their hands on, focused on doing something that stands out from the crowd to get noticed. It's only the innovations that will give them any hope of succeeding.
The vast majority of arguments I'm hearing against triple-A studios is that it's always "more of the same." Often, game mechanics, level design, character design, dialogue, etc. has been done that way before. Many times. Everyone's seen it. Often enough, it's been done better in the past, so it's like being served cold leftovers.
Gamers (have always) want(ed) innovations. Trouble is, innovations are not guaranteed to be a hit. The more money I dump into a project (as a producer) the fewer risks I'm going to be willing to take. If it doesn't go well, there's a huge chance that investors will cash out early. I won't be able to fund future projects, and I'm probably going to put a bit of a hole in my career to boot.
Hence, the more money a "big studio" puts down on a project, the less likely innovations will be given a chance. Studios are full of artists that want to create really cool experiences. Producers are full of people that need to make a big enough financial return to stay in business.
And viola, the indie scene! Small studios that are in kind of the same position as every video game studio in the 1980s and 1990s: barely funded, trying to make due with whatever technology they can get their hands on, focused on doing something that stands out from the crowd to get noticed. It's only the innovations that will give them any hope of succeeding.
While I completely agree with the reasons why big studios are risk aversive - expensive video games are expensive and no one wants to lose a lot of money - I have to contest with the indie scene. Real question, how many truly innovative indie games can you name off the top of your head? Not good, not great or even fantastic and not unique or original - innovative. Something that defined the genre for years to come, something that big studios had to adopt, something that became a trend. I might be not versed enough in the subject, but the only example I can think of is Minecraft - but this game is in a league of its own and it was released in 2012.
Truth is, once 3D graphics became mainstream, the real innovative games that became classics are overwhelmingly big studio projects. Final Fantasy VII was among the first "cinematic" games - and it was among the most expensive games at a time. Half-Life 2 revolutionized the physics system in video games, as well as having cutting-edge graphics - according to one of the developers, Gabe gave them "unlimited budget". I don't know how much money Warcraft 3 (one of the most revolutionary games ever) has cost, but I'm sure it was a lot, considering brand-new 3D engine and insane level of quality cinematics for 2002. Mass Effect, financed by Microsoft as one of the headliners for their XBox 360, was hugely innovative in showing that RPGs can have dynamic combat and cinematic story-telling on the level of giant blockbusters - that game influenced everything afterwards, including Witcher, Cyberpunk 2077 and Baldur's Gate 3, etc. Sure, there are examples like the first Tomb Raider or Max Payne, that were developed with relatively small budgets but they are rare and they were hardly indie by today's standards.
The magic happens when people with drive and creative vision meet someone who believes in this vision and is willing to finance it.
I think that's the kicker -- large amounts of money are not really needed. A vision and the determination to see it through without "playing it safe" is what's required. Win or lose.
Fact is, there will be more losses than wins if it happens that way. Doesn't mean a game won't be successful as a singular project, but that success may not be enough to grow the studio. That's where a business opened to do business is not the same as a studio trying to create a work of art. It's a hard balance.
For myself, I'd list the following as very successful innovations:
Minecraft
Valheim
MOBAs (which began as a mod for Warcraft 3)
Mount and Blade
DayZ
I'm sure I can think of a few more...but...time...
Quite interesting
-------
I can also think of Terraria, Subnautica, Pathfinder - Kingmaker or even No Man's Sky
Is it safe to assume the game will release in 2027 with the campaign starting in the second half of 2026?
Even if the game released at the end of 2027, it's still two full years away
It's the same as ever:Is it safe to assume the game will release in 2027 with the campaign starting in the second half of 2026?
Even if the game released at the end of 2027, it's still two full years away
The game will release in 2027. But if not, it will definitely release after 2027!
Witcher 4 story director says "My stories rarely have happy endings" and that he loves "inevitable mistakes" and "character flaws"
www.gamesradar.com
I'm going to be honest, that's probably the first piece of info I've heard about Witcher 4 that makes me slightly concerned about the potential direction of the game - granted, the interview was about Cyberpunk 2077 and in Witcher saga complete happy endings are a luxury, one of my favorite things about this game series and certain moments from the books is its anti-nihilism.
That in a world ruled by violence, selfishness and greed, helping others is not just a choice, but a moral imperative. If it moves from that into "No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to change anything", then it will take away from a powerful message, I think.
"My stories rarely have happy endings": The Witcher 4 story director says Cyberpunk 2077 showcases his love of "inevitable mistakes" and "character flaws"
We're excited to see what CD Projekt Red is cooking
That in a world ruled by violence, selfishness and greed, helping others is not just a choice, but a moral imperative. If it moves from that into "No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to change anything", then it will take away from a powerful message, I think.
It doesn't have to be absolute. Quest endings don't have to be black and white, but rather have multiple layers and colors. There may be smaller or even bigger victories, but they may be shaded over by greater, darker events.
Also, there may arise conflicts like - what is moral doesn't have to be right, what is most helpful now may duck up things in a long run,...
There may be no absolutely happy endings - that's what I think the guy meant.
Yes, I also think this what it meant. In TW3, we can say the same to be fair. True "happy endings" are quite rare., while most of times it's greyish/bittersweet endings.
So I'm not especially concerned
Fair, but ironically enough, I remember a bunch of straight up good resolutions in a bunch of important quests both in Witcher 1 and Witcher 3. Like the whole deal with Abigail, Striga, the conflict between underwater folks and villagers, Keira's subquest, Skellige coronation and so on. You can argue that moments like this work among other things due to the contrast between the overall ambiguity and greyness of other stories, but in order to work they have to be present in the first place.Yes, I also think this what it meant. In TW3, we can say the same to be fair. True "happy endings" are quite rare., while most of times it's greyish/bittersweet endings.
So I'm not especially concerned