740°

Witcher Creator: I Don't Have Anything Against Games; I Was Stupid To Sell All The Rights to CDPR

The Witcher creator Andrzej Sapkowski clarified that he doesn't actually hate games.

He also blamed himself for not believing in CDPR at first, which resulted in him requesting a fixed sum instead of a share of the profits made by the games.

Read Full Story >>
wccftech.com
KaiPow2603d ago

I'm glad he's such a good sport with the purchase deal. Lesser writers could've just taken the money and been done with the universe they created.

Festano2603d ago

Well, he's biting his hands for taking the deal but at least he can leverage the increased popularity to sell more books, so it makes sense that he wants to write new ones

MVGeneral2602d ago (Edited 2602d ago )

The only reason the witcher got popular was because of cdpr. They made a helluva franchise. Now he's having regrets, because it gained huge success and a following. but he wouldn't have had this much exposure or recognition if it wasn't for the takented people at cdpr, so he shouldnt bite the hand that fed him.

Same thing with George Lucas. After selling star wars to disney and the force awakens gaining worldwide success (2.5 billion box office) he regretted it in an interview and was sulking.
And like the game of thrones series, George rr Martin's books (a song of ice and fire) wouldn't have had worldwide success and recognition without hbo's show that put him on the map. But unlike him, George fully embraced hbo's show.

2602d ago
game4funz2601d ago

@mvgeneral

Worldwide popularity yes but not Poland popularity as it is a Polish series and was already popular. Hence the games.

kitsune4512601d ago

@mvgeneral

He isn't regretting selling the rights, he's regretting not taking a percentage deal that they offered instead of taking the one-time lump sum. He didn't expect the game to be so successful and congratulates them for it. Everyone is being nice and polite, nothing to see here.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2601d ago
joab7772602d ago (Edited 2602d ago )

Hindsight is always 20/20. At the time, he probably thought that The Witcher would be made, and it was. So, he made a good deal of money. What he couldn't foresee was the evolution to TW3 and the gloval success of CDPR. Now he wished he had struck a different deal.

Though at the time they offered x amount of the profit, but it wasn't smart to take it because odds are it wouldn't have become one of the greatest games ever made.

Shoulda reserved the right to at least write more books.

darksky2601d ago

If he can't write more books and CDPR have moved on from any more Witcher games then that's bad. Would have been nice for there to be more Witcher games or books.

2601d ago
generic-user-name2601d ago

Maybe he comes across as a good sport now, but it wasn't long ago he sounded extremely bitter about the games.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2601d ago
Cybermario2603d ago

too bad, he probably thought this game wont be too big of a hit or the amazing franchise it is today.

Alexious2602d ago

I guess he didn't know anything about games and how big they can be in terms of revenue.

2601d ago
ccgr2602d ago

I'm sure his books got read read more from the games

RememberThe3572602d ago

And the games IMO are far better than the books.

Alexious2602d ago

So you don't recommend them? I was thinking of getting them. I need my Geralt fix

Movefasta19932602d ago (Edited 2602d ago )

Yes Alex buy them I currently reading the final book, they go over almost everything,how geralt and ciri first met to how he got titled as Geralt of Rivia, they are all amazing(except the first).Everyone I know who have read the books believe the story telling to be way better than the games. The tower of swallow,the second last book,it's story is way better ,and I mean way better than anything in the games.There's this man named Bonhart,he's slain witchers in the past,just reading through the events of him and ciri is worth it alone.Ahh man read them,btw I read the books after the games and I still think the majority of them far surpasses the books when it comes to story telling.
AND Just to let you know,the last wish is the first book,but imo it's nothing special, but i recommend you READ the last wish first and you'll most likely continue reading on from there.

dreamoner2602d ago

@Movefasta1993 Letho's design certainly took inspirations from Bonhart.

RememberThe3572602d ago

I've read the first three and don't really see a reason to keep reading them. The books are okay and serve to give you more back story into the characters in the games but as stand alone books they're just okay. The games on the other hand are standard setting.

starchild2602d ago

Hmm I love the books and the game. They strengthen and complement each other.

game4funz2601d ago

The books are amazing.
@Alexious
Go buy them. They're good.

Diffraction_Fos2601d ago

@Alexious - Read them. I read all 7 and they're generally good reads. The first couple of books definitely are great. The series dragged a bit during the 4th, 5th and 6th books, IMO. But overall its a very good series.

morganfell2601d ago

I recommend them all, including the first book. There is essential information in that book that actually applies to all 3 games. Sometimes it is in prominent ways and sometimes subtle, like the choice of names Geralt has in TW3 when he enters the Knight's Tourney.

The other thing about the books is their writing style is different from other western authors. Sapkowski grew up in cold war Eastern Europe and his perspectives are just different enough, his writing altered from others that the difference is noticeable and refreshing. This sleight difference makes it through the translation to English. One thing about the books that transferred into the games is the fact that in life there are often no right decisions merely our choices and the consequences we enjoy or suffer.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2601d ago
Chris_Wray2602d ago

Would be nice if CD Projekt did something with him, to benefit him further, now that the series has been a runaway success. Possibly get him to pen for a future new IP?

Diffraction_Fos2601d ago

Doubt it. He didn't like the way they "progressed" from the end of his books. So he probably won't be too eager to accept them as canon to his world.

Chris_Wray2599d ago

Possibly not to work on Witcher but actually work on a brand new IP more than anything else.

GamePeace2602d ago (Edited 2602d ago )

For all putting the games above the books ... without the books the games wouldn't even exist and CPR wouldn't even been that famous (without leaning on the universe, characters and the stories of Andrzej Sapkowski).

zuul90182602d ago (Edited 2602d ago )

And without trees paper wouldnt exist so he couldnt have wrote on anything.
If ashton kutcher didnt make the movie butterfly effect you and i wouldnt have our account names. You might be Gamewar and i might be Zuul9019.

Whos to say cdpr wouldnt have made their own fantasy universe and it wouldve been successful? It doesnt matter if ones responsible for the others existence, they can still say its better than the original or vica versa.

GamePeace2601d ago (Edited 2601d ago )

No, I don't need Ashton Kutcher for chosing my account-names and you can talk like that, because they already have the success (thanks to Sapkowski too), you're just painting fantasy scenarios ("wouldn't have ... "), while the truth is that their games are heavily based on Sapkowski's work. You can't say that one is better than the other, you can only state your personal opinion by saying that you find the books better or the games, but that's only a subjective point of view and not a fact. Truth remains that they can partially thank Sapwoski for their success ... everything else would be just madness and sheer arrogance. If it would be for many of you, Sapkowski should thank CPR for making his books famous and that's partially true, but without Sapkowski Geralt wouldn't even exist, no Sapkowski, no Witcher games ... get me?

zuul90182601d ago (Edited 2601d ago )

Sir i feel like you think theres some weird argument that im not part of...
I dont care who has to thank who? (Should be mutual right? He made it, they helped bring popularity) i havent read the books and dont plan on it. Theyre probably good, so great? I just felt your argument was flawed so i responded to it.
How is my fantasy scenario different from yours, "cdpr wouldnt have been that famous" how do you know this? Would they have not made games? Your doing same thing in your argument sir.
As for saying which is better you absolutely can.... as you said, "by saying that you find the books better or the game" yea so.... they can say they like one better than the other then? Like they can with any thing that exists? Dogs are better than cats? Can i not say that? Do i have to state afterwards its my opinion for it to be passable, or should i be able to have the hope that the people reading this can understand that statements like that are opinions not facts.

GamePeace2601d ago (Edited 2601d ago )

To respond to your second comment, because I can't reply under it. Of course you can say whatever you please, but fact is, that the Witcher games exist because of Sapkowski's work, you don't need to read his books, but show at least a little bit of respect for this person (I feel that many on the comment section lack the respect for him, saying that CPR made his books popular and that the games are by far the better Witcher prodcuts, while they forget that Sapkowski is the real mind behind the universe, nearly every character and story of the Witcher). You can say that dogs are better than cats, but that's only your personal opinion and not the truth. Better would be if you would say:"In my opinion dogs are better than cats" (sounds much more respectful and humble in my opinion), instead of of blatantly saying: "dogs are better than cats" (that sounds really childlike, pretentious and boisterous, like you want to impose your statement on someone elses mind), you should express yourself more clearly next time, because not everyone is willing to take your arguments seriously if you just state something without making clear that's only your personal point of view. That's why phrases like 'in my opinion', 'I'm off the opinion', 'To my mind' ecc. exist, right?

zuul90182601d ago

I guess yea, thats why phrases like that exist. However at 27 and having been in the navy so ive traveled, im gonna say nobody really talks like that. Its not disrespectful to cats if i say dogs are better than cats. Same if i say the games better than the book.
I seriously highly doubt you put "in my opinion" or "im of the opinion" before every one of your opinions. I mean only a crazy person would do that. Yes occassionally youll use them but can you honestly say you use them all the time? I think ive used something to state an opinion is an opinion on about 10% of my opinions. Because if the person needs me to state what type of comment i make before i make it talking is going to become a massive chore.
I think childlike would be "dogs are better than cats and cat people are idiots" or heres a great one "ps4 is better than xbox unless youre an xbot". Or if they dont allow for the opposition to have an argument. "Dogs are better than cats end of story". But to say not claiming an opinion is an opinion beforehand is childlike is absurd.

Your skin is a bit too thin if simple opinions feel pretentious and boisterous.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2601d ago
Show all comments (55)
290°

Brad Hilderbrand explains the reason behind the recent Xbox studio closures

There are two reasons why all those Bethesda studios closed, and neither of them have anything to do with Bethesda (directly)...

Game Pass and Activision.

Read Full Story >>
linkedin.com
Christopher5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

The guy confirming what we've all (well, most of us) been saying since the latest purchase.

crazyCoconuts2h ago

Remember the relatively common counter that went something like "I'm sure you arm-chair CEOs know better how to run a company than the biggest company in the world"?

I mean - there's a lot to running a company for sure, but on this topic it's hard to understand how Phil and team didn't see this coming.

Tody_za2h ago(Edited 2h ago)

Phil and team knew it was coming and planned for it. It's not even a conspiracy, it's simply the business of cutting costs and superfluous studios after a major acquisition. They don't give a damn about Tango Gameworks or other small creative studios that won't recoup their losses. They don't care about investing in this industry. They have no interest in risky and expensive new IP. They are only interested in profiting off ownership of Bethesda IP, Call of Duty and Candy Crush.

I guarantee you that not one single game under their banner will improve or become bigger and better.

Welcome to the Xbox family, what a pathetic joke.

Anyone who continues to support this, enjoy your future, because this is it. Ninja Theory is next, and Perfect Dark after that.

Christopher1h ago

Especially not with the evidence of tons of existing movie streaming subs out there and how they fail to make a profit with over 100m users each quarter.

Lightning7710m ago

Apparently they're debating if they wanna put the new Cod on Gamepass or not.

Either grow GP with Cod or don't put it on GP and grow the revenue the traditional way while GP will suffer.

The mess that MS puts themselves in.

XiNatsuDragnel5h ago

I'm not surprised Microsoft guys are crock nuff said

isarai5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

Honestly i think Bethesda needs to buy themselves out of zenimax/MSs hands and do their own thing, i honestly think that would fix a lot of issues and save them from a potential closure.

Zeref5h ago

There's a reason they sold in the first place. And Bethesda is not closing anytime soon lol. As much as I hate the studio closures. They were all small studios 2 of them were mobile studios.

I think these are growing pains and Xbox will get back on track. But they're not getting any more passes.

jwillj2k43h ago(Edited 3h ago)

I’d like to see your reaction to being growing pained out of your job after the launch of a successful product.

Mr_cheese1h ago

Excuses, Excuses, excuses.

If growing pains have been happening for the best part of a decade, they're not growth.

XiNatsuDragnel1h ago

Zeref nii San
I'm sorry but xbox has been rightfully bashed due to constant incompetence

romulus231h ago

Yet you literally just gave them a pass, being "small studios" or "mobile studios" is irrelevant. There's no excsue for closing Tango, none. They praise the game, they PR talk about it's the kind of game the company needs and yet they shutter the developer, that's foul on every level.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1h ago
Tacoboto1h ago

Bethesda greenlit Redfall, launched Fallout 76 in the condition it was in (and the fiasco with the bonus bag), and spent all that time on Starfield finishing it as it was with that same engine. Wolfenstein Youngblood exists because of them too, not Microsoft.

Are you *sure* leaving them alone would actually result in a better outcome, not just a different one?

isarai1m ago(Edited 0m ago)

A lot of this excessive monetization, and GAAS crap started when Zenimax decided to start looking for a buyer. Not a coincidence that there was a sudden shift in prioritizing profits above quality or even coherence at the same time. They wanted big numbers to attract buyers, now that they've been bought, MS wants exactly what they were baited with.

However even under Zenimax they made enough to self publish sometimes, so i would imagine it's not too far fetched that they could pay their way into independence if they REALLY wanted to.

Also even people at Bethesda and Arkane were hoping MS would cancel the game as again, they were forced to make something they didn't want to make.

Einhander19725h ago

Ah, we can see how the Microsoft media machine works.

Every article I read now is some kind of attempt to shift the blame off Microsoft and paint them as the victims or convince people that Microsoft mistakes were just some kind unforeseeable unfortunate twist of fate.

The shills are out in full force today.

Christopher4h ago

This is not at all what this article is saying. It's saying that honest and useful studios are getting closed because of big money deals elsewhere and the faults with game pass as a model.

Einhander19724h ago

I understand what the article is about.

It's a deflection, it's a putting the cart before the horse article.

Let me tell you how this problem wouldn't have existed in the first place.

Microsoft not creating a service funded by subsidization and having the foresight to see that it would disrupt consumer spending habit to begin with. Then not buying Bethesda and undertaking costs for a service that was already failing to pay for itself because their own expectations of Game Pass having "billions" of subscribers was unobtainable from the very start.

And if you don't think that was the case go back to the article on the day Game Pass launched and read the comments from people from day one who foresaw that this would be an unsustainable model and would cause people to stop spending in the same way.

Christopher4h ago

***Microsoft not creating a service funded by subsidization and having the foresight to see that it would disrupt consumer spending habit to begin with.***

This article literally supports this opinion. He's not praising Game Pass or the ABK purchase.

Einhander19724h ago(Edited 4h ago)

This is an explanation of why it failed, there is zero blame put onto Microsoft itself.

Yes, it talks about what went wrong, but it doesn't say Microsoft shouldn't have done it. It doesn't say Phil should have foreseen this outcome and stopped before it got to this point.

"convince people that Microsoft mistakes were just some kind unforeseeable unfortunate twist of fate"

Christopher3h ago(Edited 3h ago)

***but you're seeing the impact; all those smaller studios making really interesting games are going to fall away, simply because as good as games like Hi-Fi Rush are, they're never going to make enough money to make up that $70B hole that Xbox now has to dig itself out of.***

If you see that as support or you explicitly just want people to end their argument with "and, in conclusion, Microsoft bad" then that's on you. This article does not support Microsoft's choices and highlights the faults. Nothing it says is good about these choices, even saying that putting CoD on Game Pass would be money losing for them because they've set themselves up for failure (and not putting it on there will drop subscriber numbers like crazy, meaning their Game Pass plans were shit to begin with).

No matter how you look at it, they're saying Microsoft made decisions that hurt the bottom line, force closures, and leave Game Pass in a situation where they lose no matter what they do. It's all negative.

Einhander19723h ago

Christopher, if Microsoft hadn't made Game Pass and bought a bunch of publishers would this article even need to exist?

Christopher3h ago

***Christopher, if Microsoft hadn't made Game Pass and bought a bunch of publishers would this article even need to exist? ***

How is this an argument to anything being discussed? This is just as valuable of an argument as "if fish had stayed in deeper waters, they wouldn't have evolved to tetrapods, adapted to shallow water and then to land, and we wouldn't even exist and have to worry about game pass at all."

You're bringing nothing to this argument and then complaining that other people are highlighting the issues with Game Pass and spending tens of billions on studios because what we should be discussing is what it would be like if Microsoft hadn't done any of that.

Well, they did do it. Now pull up your big boy pants and join in on the discussion of what that has meant for the industry since then and, especially right now, how that is affecting the industry and game studios under Microsoft. None of us are able to go back in time and change what was done.

Einhander19722h ago(Edited 2h ago)

Christopher, this isn't me not understanding what the article is about, it's you not understanding what I am saying.

If you want me to make excuses for Microsoft's bad decisions you're not going to get that or just agree with people who are doing that, it's not going to happen, nor are you going to convert me into thinking xbox "needs to exist".

Ya know what, maybe "Microsoft bad".... maybe their decisions ARE having a negative effect on the industry, and instead of deflecting from their actual actions and making excuses for them we stand up and say "no" "Microsoft is hurting the industry"

And maybe, just maybe, it was so obvious that this was going to be the outcome that even nobodies in comment sections on websites were able to easily predict this outcome, yet Microsoft did it anyway then kept doing and even when it became undeniable that it was having a negative impact on their business and and the industry itself, then they knowingly made even bigger purchases and caused more problems.

And the one thing you're right about is that I can't go back in time, but I CAN speak up and try to keep it from happening again...

Maybe if the people who were speaking up 7 years ago were listened too we wouldn't be having this discussion and Tango and Arkane would still be in business along with all the other people who have lost their jobs due to Microsoft's actions.

Do you like analogies?

What you're saying is like an alcoholic crashing their car then trying to explain it by saying it was caused by everything except the fact that they were dunk because they are an alcoholic and don't want to stop drinking.

TiredGamer2h ago

The article is essentially focusing the blame on MS. GamePass was a hail mary play to change the gaming paradigm and carve out a special niche for themselves, emulating the Netflix model, that might have led to MS becoming the leader in the long-term. Unfortunately, the subscriber growth isn't really there, and the model isn't really built to weather that lack of revenue. MS is now in a restructure mindset to figure out how they balance out their model in a way that can still make them money.

've always believed that GamePass was a high risk shot that had a very low chance of long-term success. But the problem with it, whether it succeeded or not, is that it accelerated the proverbial "race to zero" consumer expectation that ran its course in the mobile gaming industry in the late 2000s. When consumers start thinking that games should be "cheap" (as in through a $10/month all-you-can-eat subscription model), it turns the narrative against games being priced at realistic levels. So with the GamePass failure, they've not only sabotaged their market share, but they've impacted the entire industry and devalued the cost of game development to the average consumer. So now it's harder to develop mega-big budget games and to earn the revenue needed to pay for them.

XiNatsuDragnel1h ago

Again terrible excuses in the 1st place

Christopher1h ago

***If you want me to make excuses for Microsoft's bad decisions you're not going to get that or just agree with people who are doing that, it's not going to happen, nor are you going to convert me into thinking xbox "needs to exist". ***

No one is asking you to make excuses for Microsoft's bad decisions nor is anyone asking you to convert to anything.

***Ya know what, maybe "Microsoft bad".... maybe their decisions ARE having a negative effect on the industry, and instead of deflecting from their actual actions and making excuses for them we stand up and say "no" "Microsoft is hurting the industry" ***

Literally no one here is doing this. They're literally discussing how Microsoft's decisions have hurt the industry. Except you. You're rambling about why people aren't complaining about Microsoft when people are in fact complaining about Microsoft.

*** And the one thing you're right about is that I can't go back in time, but I CAN speak up and try to keep it from happening again... ***

Then perhaps actually add something to the conversation other than calling people shills when people are complaining about the decisions and repercussions of Microsoft's actions.

Tacoboto1h ago

Christopher, you're fighting a block wall here - Ein will continue twisting and contorting any remark to fit his self-created narrative.

Einhander19721h ago(Edited 53m ago)

"Then perhaps actually add something to the conversation other than calling people shills when people are complaining about the decisions and repercussions of Microsoft's actions."

Cristopher, in no way is the author of this article complaining, they are explaining what happened it's literally the title. They never once say that Microsoft shouldn't have bought Zenimax or Activision or that Game Pass was a bad idea to begin with. They think the problem with Game Pass is that it didn't grow fast enough, not that it was a bad idea from the get go.

BTW this is his job title.

"Public Relations and Communications Leader"

What do you think a Public Relations and Communications Leader does to make money?

Edit: I have read a dozen of these articles that just started coming out in the last 24 hours that are trying to shift the conversation away from blaming Microsoft, the shift here and in several other articles is trying to say it just didn't gain subscribers fast enough, not that it was a bad idea to begin with that was doomed to fail or placing the blame on anyone.

It was all just an unforeseeable outcome, no one should be held responsible it was just a billion dollar oopsie that's costing thousands of people their jobs and has caused a downturn in the entire industries sustainability.

Oopsie!

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1h ago
MrDead3h ago

It's greed. MS has the IP's it wants now it's dumping the studios that it's raided, MS will still make money from Tango's games unlike the people that made them. If anyone follows MS outside of gaming you'll see this is what they do, buy companies take what they want consolidate some of the workforce and shut them down. I don't know why people are acting so surprised when this is Microsoft being Microsoft.

MS is a three trillion dollar company, if it enters a market it has no need to compete, they take what they want and with the financial influence it can bypass laws that are meant to protect the consumer and the workforce. Just look at how they are cornering the AI market right now with buyups and investments.

Show all comments (33)
110°

Generative AI Will Allow Bigger, More Immersive Worlds, Says EA, and Developers Were 'Hungry' for It

Electronic Arts CEO Andrew Wilson said generative AI will allow bigger, more immersive worlds, and the developers were very eager for it.

Read Full Story >>
wccftech.com
Christopher1d 2h ago

If you want a tool to reduce the time it takes to make a product, AI is a tool to do that. If you want a tool to just make content for you, AI is a poor crutch for good writing and storytelling.

Vits20h ago(Edited 20h ago)

I don't disagree. However, good writing and storytelling in games are still pretty rare. Honestly, AI as it is right now could probably produce output similar to, if not better than, your average experience. Especially because the main issue I see being thrown around for its use is the generation of ludonarrative problems. But, we have literal GotY winners that are incarnations of ludonarrative problems and written by humans. So if specialists don't care, would the average player even notice?

That said, from the perspective of improving the craft, AI will undoubtedly do more harm than good if used for that.

Christopher20h ago

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what we're getting out there right now is overall great from everyone. There are obviously a lot of bad writers out there. The problem is AI learning from bad writers. No thanks!

thorstein1d 1h ago (Edited 1d 1h ago )

Time for AI to replace CEOS. That way, when it fails, as it inevitably will, there's no one to tell. The employees can continue to make games, get raises (no CEO bonuses), and there will no longer be bone headed decisions by id10Ts.

Christopher20h ago

Think how much easier it will be to fire an AI CEO than a real one! We've sacked Ocrulos AI CEO and will be replacing him with Kensho Technologies v3 CEO.

isarai20h ago

Honestly, that's the funny thing I find about AI. Is that it's the management and higher up positions that are the most perfectly replaceable positions with AI vs people at ground level.

XiNatsuDragnel20h ago

Just ea man y'all embarrassing yourselves

anast6h ago

Games are about to get worse. AI will do most of the lifting, devs will polish the turd and prices will raise because of "the economy".

SimpleSlave6h ago(Edited 6h ago)

'Generative AI Will Allow Bigger, More Immersive Life>>>>>> >> Work Balance and Paychecks for our Employees, Says EA, and Developers Were 'Hungry' for It'

Sounds good to me.

Show all comments (10)
60°

EA CEO Says AI Will Transform 50% of Development Process

EA's CEO says that AI will revolutionize 50% of their development, enhancing speed and creativity in gaming.

Read Full Story >>
infinitestart.com
thorstein1d 7h ago

I've heard of garbage in, garbage out.

But garbage creating garbage is a whole new "landscape of gaming" garbage.

isarai1d 4h ago (Edited 1d 4h ago )

You mean "Replace" 🙄😒

enkiduxiv7h ago

Coming from Andrew Wilson, an AI designed to behave like a tech bro, this sounds like nepotism.

Barlos6h ago(Edited 6h ago)

Yeah and it'll also destroy creativity, as well as cause more job losses.

The more I hear things like this, the more I think the games industry is finished. I see nothing to be excited about any more.

anast6h ago

EA games are going to get worse.