Witcher 3 - Don't expect a Witcher 4

[Ripper]

As the Eurogamer article pointed out, CDPR is already listening to the very positive "talk" of their own money. "CD Projekt Red is also financially flying high, having sold 6m Witcher 3 copies in six weeks. And as an effectively self-published game, most profits go back to it."

Again, their current profitability has nothing to do with it. I'm not saying that the company is not making money - I'm sure it is. But, if they're running the company in a responsible way, most of the that profit gets reinvested in the company. The question is, how do the owners get their really big pay day? Many companies don't aspire to become large multi-generational corporations - they plan to build up the value of the company over a certain period of time, and sell at good time for maximum value.

As I said, not all smaller companies go that route, but that is the plan for a substantial number of them. I don't have a crystal ball to say with certainty what CDPR will do, and neither do you, but it is a common outcome for businesses of that size, and it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Darkheart]

Well they just need to hire Sapkowski then

I'm not sure if it still holds, but I read somewhere that Sapkowski showed extremely little interest in the pc games of Witcher. He just sold the licence for the money in it apparently and didn't care about it after that.

Maybe he changed his mind by now, since nobody outside Poland would know the witcher were it not for the games...

 

[RPGFool]

@Ripper,

You seem to keep saying that what you said before "has nothing to do with it". Whereas before you said "In the end, money usually talks." you now say that "has nothing to do with it" and have morphed what you said before into a new test; "how do the owners get their really big pay day?"

Maybe its just possible that CDPR founders look at things differently than you. Perhaps they honestly mean it when they say they are fiercely committed to being independent. Perhaps they have no foreseeable need for an "exit strategy". Perhaps their own business strategy offers a better return than most if not all other alternative investments they could make.

And just maybe they actually enjoy independently creating and publishing great video games and achieving remarkable success in their business endeavors. For many driven entrepreneurs in the world of business, there's not any big pay day in the world more rewarding than the rewards of their own success.

At any rate, I trust what CDPR's principals say about their own future. I see nothing contradictory in their actual history; and submit that they know a lot more about their own motivations, plans, and business than you, or I for that matter, possibly could.

__

 

[Moriendor]

The question is, how do the owners get their really big pay day? Many companies don't aspire to become large multi-generational corporations - they plan to build up the value of the company over a certain period of time, and sell at good time for maximum value.

Well, they have already done that in a way. Remember that CDP is a publicly traded company at the Warsaw stock exchange. The owners make an immediate profit every day the stock moves in a northern direction.

And in a way they have already "sold out" once with the Optimus S.A. reverse takeover (in reality CDP acquired Optimus but legally they constructed a reverse takeover where Optimus took over CDP).

 

[RPGFool]

Well, they have already done that in a way. Remember that CDP is a publicly traded company at the Warsaw stock exchange. The owners make an immediate profit every day the stock moves in a northern direction.

And in a way they have already "sold out" once with the Optimus S.A. reverse takeover (in reality CDP acquired Optimus but legally they constructed a reverse takeover where Optimus took over CDP).

I don't know the details of the Optimus deal, and whether it includes provisions precluding or working against granting absolute control of CDPR to a larger entity, but such provisions wouldn't be surprising, and I do know that European business laws aren't the same as in the US. For example whereas we in the US hold the Board of Directors responsible primarily to the shareholders, in at least some European jurisdictions, the Board has an equal if not greater duty to the employees of a company. Don't know Polish law on this issue but am sure that law of the US Sate of Delaware won't be the controlling law (as would be typical for US businesses as they typically incorporate themselves in Delaware).

[Edit] Can't easily find details of the Optimus deal as many of the citations are in Polish. I did learn that Marcin Iwinski is currently the Joint CEO of CDP. Hence the CDP founder hasn't relinquished full company control at this point (unlike the situation with Bioware/EA). [End Edit]

[Edit 2] Turns out that Michał Kiciński and Marcin Iwińsk, the original founders of CD Project currently own 25.56 percent of CD PROJEKT S.A.. Suffice it to say that wresting control of the company from those two, would be a gargantuan task as a legal and practical matter. This situation isn't even close to comparable to the Bioware/EA deal. [End Edit 2]

__

 

[Ripper]

@Ripper,

You seem to keep saying that what you said before "has nothing to do with it". Whereas before you said "In the end, money usually talks." you now say that "has nothing to do with it" and have morphed what you said before into a new test; "how do the owners get their really big pay day?"

No, you are confusing what I'm saying. I'm saying their current level of profitability has got nothing to do with whether they will eventually look for a buyout; the fact that a company makes a large profit at a given time tells us nothing about how much cash the owners are receiving. My argument has not "morphed" at all - I'm saying that money talks, and that business plans are constructed with a view to the owners and investors eventually getting a big pay day. Those are facets of the same thing.

The concept of a business exit strategy is not some pet theory of my own - it's a fairly fundamental component of a business plan. If you ask someone who runs a tech company about their exit strategy, they will know exactly what you mean, and will have clear ideas about how they plan to deal with it.

You don't need to tell me that I can't predict the future - I already confessed I don't have a crystal ball. What I'm saying is that looking for an eventual buyer is the rule rather than the exception with these kinds of businesses. All I initially said is that I hope they don't get bought out by a horrible corporation, which is an obvious possibility.

The fact that they talk about the importance of creative freedom and independence does not carry much weight, to me. I'm quite sure similar things were said by the Bioware founders back in the day, how it was all about the love of making games, before that "morphed" into talk about how the EA acquisition would allow for undreamed of new possibilities. And, this isn't even considering the possibility of a crisis forcing CDPR's hand. They were on the verge of bankruptcy in 2008, and have now had one major success. One major failure could easily land them back in buyer-seeking territory.

 

[JDR13]

One major failure could easily land them back in buyer-seeking territory.

Highly unlikely. You have to remember that, on top of their recent success, they also own GOG.com which is doing pretty good on its own.

 

[Carnifex]

I haven't even played the third game yet so I'm in no rush to see a fourth. I'll get to it at some point but, until then, please don't sell or lend the license to EA. Please.

 

[Ripper]

Highly unlikely. You have to remember that, on top of their recent success, they also own GOG.com which is doing pretty good on its own.

Yes, I appreciate that. But a the failure of a major project like a AAA game, with budgets around $100 million, could bring down a pretty sizeable company. If, for example, Cyberpunk were a disaster, I think they would be in considerable difficulty. This is particularly true because their policy is work on only one game at a time. That would be a heck of a long time before the prospect of a new game bringing in serious new money.

 

[RPGFool]

No, you are confusing what I'm saying. I'm saying their current level of profitability has got nothing to do with whether they will eventually look for a buyout; the fact that a company makes a large profit at a given time tells us nothing about how much cash the owners are receiving. My argument has not "morphed" at all - I'm saying that money talks, and that business plans are constructed with a view to the owners and investors eventually getting a big pay day. Those are facets of the same thing.

The concept of a business exit strategy is not some pet theory of my own - it's a fairly fundamental component of a business plan. If you ask someone who runs a tech company about their exit strategy, they will know exactly what you mean, and will have clear ideas about how they plan to deal with it.

You don't need to tell me that I can't predict the future - I already confessed I don't have a crystal ball. What I'm saying is that looking for an eventual buyer is the rule rather than the exception with these kinds of businesses. All I initially said is that I hope they don't get bought out by a horrible corporation, which is an obvious possibility.

The fact that they talk about the importance of creative freedom and independence does not carry much weight, to me. I'm quite sure similar things were said by the Bioware founders back in the day, how it was all about the love of making games, before that "morphed" into talk about how the EA acquisition would allow for undreamed of new possibilities. And, this isn't even considering the possibility of a crisis forcing CDPR's hand. They were on the verge of bankruptcy in 2008, and have now had one major success. One major failure could easily land them back in buyer-seeking territory.

Actually it was you who is confused on what you originally said and what you are saying now. Your word wall denials don't change the facts.

I'll believe what the successful founders, current CEOs, and 25+ percent shareholders of CD Project have to say about the company's future over your ever-changing explanations. The credibility of the CD Projek principals is established by their business history and current intricate company knowledge. I'll just leave it there.

__

 

[JDR13]

Yes, I appreciate that. But a the failure of a major project like a AAA game, with budgets around $100 million, could bring down a pretty sizeable company. If, for example, Cyberpunk were a disaster, I think they would be in considerable difficulty. This is particularly true because their policy is work on only one game at a time. That would be a heck of a long time before the prospect of a new game bringing in serious new money.

I'm not saying it's not possible, just highly unlikely. I think it's safe to say that a company like CDP at this point has enough business savvy to anticipate multiple possibilities and have a contingency plan.

 

[Ripper]

Actually it was you who is confused on what you originally said and what you are saying now. Your word wall denials don't change the facts.

I'll believe what the successful founders, current CEOs, and majority shareholders of CD Project have to say about the company's future over your ever-changing explanations. I'll just leave it there.

Well, that's a rather disappointing response. I was trying to have a conversation with you.

I think what I've been saying is pretty straightforward and easy to follow. I said that I hope they don't get bought by EA or similar. You responded by quoting what the company spokespeople currently say about it. All I'm saying is that it's worth having a bit of a think about how companies actually work, what goes on in the market, and that the "successful founders" of companies are not always entirely forthcoming with the truth.

 

[RPGFool]

Well, that's a rather disappointing response. I was trying to have a conversation with you.

I think what I've been saying is pretty straightforward and easy to follow. I said that I hope they don't get bought by EA or similar. You responded by quoting what the company spokespeople currently say about it. All I'm saying is that it's worth having a bit of a think about how companies actually work, what goes on in the market, and that the "successful founders" of companies are not always entirely forthcoming with the truth.

Actually I quoted the company's co-founder, who is also Joint CEO, and who owns together with the other co-founder, over 25 percent of the company's stock. That's quite different than a mere "company spokesperson".

As I said before, the statements of company's successful principals are demonstrably entitled to a high degree of credibility. I'll take their analysis over yours. If that disappoints you, I'm truly sorry.

__

 

[Ripper]

Actually I quoted the company's co-founder, who is also Joint CEO, and who owns together with the other co-founder, over 25 percent of the company's stock. That's quite different than a mere "company spokesperson".

Whoever speaks for a company or organisation is a spokesperson. That could equally well be the CEO or a PR flunky. Doesn't really matter, if the message is the one the company intends to communicate.

As I said before, the statements of company's successful principals are entitled to a high degree of credibility. I'll take their analysis over yours. If that disappoints you, I'm truly sorry.

No, a sniffy walkout that dodges the argument, rather than an intelligent response, is what disappoints me.

They are not offering an "analysis", they are making a statement of intent. I'm trying to explain why a buyout is not an unrealistic concern in this case, as it would be for any company in a similar position. I am not saying it is going to happen. I just find it rather credulous to accept what companies say in public statements as a strong reassurance of what they will actually do.

 

[RPGFool]

Whoever speaks for a company or organisation is a spokesperson. That could equally well be the CEO or a PR flunky. Doesn't really matter, if the message is the one the company intends to communicate.



No, a sniffy walkout that dodges the argument, rather than an intelligent response, is what disappoints me.

They are not offering an "analysis", they are making a statement of intent. I'm trying to explain why a buyout is not an unrealistic concern in this case, as it would be for any company in a similar position. I am not saying it is going to happen. I just find it rather credulous to accept what companies say in public statements as a strong reassurance of what they will actually do.

Actually there's quite a difference between a mere spokesperson and company principals who are speaking for the company. Characterizing a company CEO, founder and major stockholder as a mere "company spokesperson" is a half truth at best, particularly where, as here, the person in question is obviously much more than that.

As to "sniffy" you are the only one expressing "sniffy" disappointment. As to "walkouts" you won't even own up to your factual misstatements of what you had said was important and then changed to be "not important", and you apparently cannot even acknowledge your own misleading characterization of CDPR's co-founder as "the company spokespeople."

It think it quite fair to view the detailed and reasoned statements of the company co-founder as an analysis. If you still wish to quibble over the co-founder's statements, I'm happy to say that I'll believe the demonstrably credible views of this company's co-founder as to whether a buyout should be a realistic concern, over your differing views.

__

 

[Ripper]

Actually there's quite a difference between a mere spokesperson and company principals who are speaking for the company. Characterizing a company CEO, founder and major stockholder as a mere "company spokesperson" is a half truth at best, particularly where, as here, the person in question is obviously much more than that.

As to "sniffy" you are the only one expressing "sniffy" disappointment. As to "walkouts" you won't even own up to your factual misstatements of what you had said was important and then changed to be "not important", and you apparently cannot even acknowledge your own misleading characterization of CDPR's co-founder as "the company spokespeople."

It think it quite fair to view the detailed and reasoned statements of the company co-founder as an analysis. If you still wish to quibble over the co-founder's statements, I'm happy to say that I'll believe the demonstrably credible views of company co-founder over your views.

When a company founder speaks about his company, he is acting as a spokesperson for that company. Period. I don't see why you're trying to make a semantic point out of something so straightforward.

I'm simply trying to describe why a reasonable person might see a company buyout as a concern for the future. You seem determined not to follow what I'm actually saying, but in the absence of cogent arguments beyond a faith that it won't happen because they say so, you don't seem to be advancing your case much beyond pedantic attempts to dismiss my point, rather than engaging with it.

 

[RPGFool]

When a company founder speaks about his company, he is acting as a spokesperson for that company. Period. I don't see why you're trying to make a semantic point out of something so straightforward.

I'm simply trying to describe why a reasonable person might see a company buyout as a concern for the future. You seem determined not to follow what I'm actually saying, but in the absence of cogent arguments beyond a faith that it won't happen because they say so, you don't seem to be advancing your case much beyond pedantic attempts to dismiss my point, rather than engaging with it.

Just because a company principal is speaking for the company doesn't denigrate his role to that of a mere spokesperson. In this case he is a co-founder and joint CEO. It's you who is trying to change a substantive issue into an issue of semantics. You told a misleading half truth. Most reasonable people would own up to it. That's your problem, not mine.

I do understand the point you are trying to argue. But I disagree. When the co-founder and CEO states "It's my personal horror to become a faceless behemoth of game development or publishing or what not," he added. "As long as I am here I will be fighting for this not to happen.", he's pretty clearly saying in colloquial English that this would only happen over his dead body.

You choose to ignore the CEO and co-founder's emphatic statements in favor of your own arguments which you claim to be applicable to any (every) company regardless of actual facts. I disagree. I don't believe most reasonable people or most business analysts, would ignore these actual and specific statements in favor of arguments you claim apply equally to all. Reasonable people consider all actual facts. Your arguments do not and cannot trump the actual facts of the situation.

__

 

[Ripper]

Just because a company principal is speaking for the company doesn't denigrate his role to that of a mere spokesperson. In this case he is a co-founder and joint CEO. It's you who is trying to change a substantive issue into an issue of semantics. You told a misleading half truth. Most reasonable people would own up to it. That's your problem, not mine.

Well, it is sort of your problem when you are demonstrably wrong. You are confusing the idea of a dedicated role as spokesperson, with the the fact that whoever speaks on behalf of a company is correctly described as the spokesperson in that instance. I will bet that CDPR has no-one whose role and job description is simply "spokesperson". Hardly any company would have. Whoever speaks on a given occasion, be it a PR manager or senior figure, is acting as spokesperson. In any case, I had no intention of trying to minimise the statement by calling him spokesperson. That serves no purpose to my argument, which is rejecting the idea that a statement by the company at large is a guarantee against future business decisions, and it really is just a matter of semantics.

I do understand the point you are trying to argue. But I disagree. When the co-founder and CEO states "It's my personal horror to become a faceless behemoth of game development or publishing or what not," he added. "As long as I am here I will be fighting for this not to happen.", he's pretty clearly saying in colloquial English that this would only happen over his dead body.

You choose to ignore the CEO and co-founder's emphatic statements in favor of your own arguments. I don't believe most reasonable people or most business analysts, would ignore these statements. I further don't believe they would ignore the co-founder's personal history and the company history which support the co-founder's credibility.

Again though, what actual argument does this contain besides your resolution that this is an assurance against them being bought out?

With regards to whether the market, or a reasonable person, would believe the CEO's statement, I think you have to consider the extent to which they would consider it a guarantee, which is precisely what I'm getting at. What he is essentially saying is that the rumour of a current takeover by EA is false, and that he would personally be opposed to becoming "a faceless behemoth of game development". That's fine, I believe him, and I expect the market did too. But would I, or the market, take this to be a solid assurance that CDPR won't be bought out in the future? Of course not. It would be incredibly naive to think so.

Indeed, he doesn't make anything remotely close to such a guarantee. He says that while he's there, he'd fight against becoming the behemoth, which doesn't necessarily preclude a buyout at all, so long as he happens to perceive the outcome positively. He could also leave the company (which would probably involve him being bought out personally by other investors), and this could be driven by any number of scenarios. He might lose his fight (the very fact that he phrases it that way implies that possibility).

And, it's entirely possible that they could sell up, while claiming that the buyer is a wonderful "partner", that respects their independence, and definitely isn't the sort of faceless horror he'd feared, and blah, blah, blah - all the usual shite that gets talked when such buyouts occur.

All I'm saying is that a buyout is clearly a possibility, and one I hope won't come to pass. Do you really think his statement precludes the possibility?

 

[RPGFool]

Do you really believe that any reliable report would ever have characterized Bill Gates, speaking publicly on behalf of Microsoft, merely as "a company spokesperson"? Ridiculous. How about the President of the US, speaking publicly on behalf of the US government? A government spokesperson? Ridiculous.

As to your new arguments CDPR's CEO and co-founder went well beyond denying EA or other specific takeover rumors. The Eurogamer article discussed the takeover issue in general, just as the CDPR co-founder did. You can't make actual facts disappear by ignoring them as you continue to try to do.

Enough. The facts speak for themselves. CDPR's co-founder and Joint CEO has stated vehemently that he is against any takeover of the type you originally speculated. He is in a position to make any such takeover attempt both extremely difficult and costly, or to stop it dead cold.

That's enough to take the issue out of realm of what you call "reasonable concern" for most folks whether it satisfies you or not.

__

 

[Ripper]

Do you really believe that any reliable report would ever have characterized Bill Gates, speaking publicly on behalf of Microsoft, merely as "a company spokesperson"? Ridiculous. How about the President of the US, speaking publicly on behalf of the US government? A government spokesperson? Ridiculous.

One would not frequently describe people of such stature as a spokesperson, even though it would be correct. The phrase, "Obama is the spokesman for the American people" is a perfectly reasonable one that you might well see in certain contexts. I would also venture that comparing the boss of a mid-sized game studio to the leader of the free world is rather absurd. I've also tried to explain why this is irrelevant to my point.

As to your new arguments CDPR's CEO and co-founder went well beyond denying EA or other specific takeover rumors. The Eurogamer article discussed the takeover issue in general, just as the CDPR co-founder did. You can't make actual facts disappear by ignoring them as you continue to try do.

Enough. The facts speak for themselves. CDPR's co-founder and Joint CEO has stated vehemently that he is against any takeover of the type you originally speculated. He is in a position to make any such takeover attempt both extremely difficult and costly, or to stop it dead cold.

That's enough for most reasonable folks whether it is for you or not.

The "facts" you appear to be offering consist of a single Eurogamer article, in which The CEO says a few lines about rebel spirit (none of which preclude a conceivable buyout, and which were taken from an earlier interview, in a completely different context) and some editorialising by a journalist. If you showed that to an investor or stock broker, and said, "See - we can now be sure that CDPR won't ever be bought out," I'm afraid he would laugh in your face.

I'm not quite sure how else to put it to you. Comments from a CEO on a Given day ≠ guarantee of future events?