CD Projeckt Red The Witcher 3

[Iceman]

You can always take a combination of upfront and royalties.

 

[zenith16]

It's the kind of thing I'd heard often about in Art School, about artists who didn't think long term and signed a rights contract for something they created only to get bitten down the road. He does sometimes come off like a Polish Alan Moore, too. But, in this case it sounds like it's entirely on him. CDPR probably would have wanted the profit sharing, too, because it was probably alot of money they had to give him up front. And for a new IP and a new developer, they probably could have used every cent they could get.

But, to be perfectly fair...who the hell would have thought that a character and book series from Poland could be adapted so well into a series of videogames that would then make it a worldwide success? Sapkowski taking that bet makes sense.

I mean, it's a real hands off "just give me my money" approach, but it makes sense why he'd take the money upfront (losing more in the longterm).

this is all true but there's also the fact that alot of people don't under certain industries even if they are in an industry that is it's mirror as well. alot ofthe video game industry is that different from, book's or film at least in the way they make money while there other thing that differ. the only it really be come an issue is after they say how much money can be gained from just area's. it's weird also with how much the news pushing certain industry are doing in the way of money that there are still people that still don't get it.

yeah there are alot of people that don't pay attention to their own daily news anymore especially certain old people. lol but I remember back in the day my old man always told me I should list to the news be it radio or tv if not the news paper. and there' always some about he video games industry these days in when I look now and they always mention how much it making.


I guess it's also cause it wasn't some he was into growing up as an interest. like how some people really love records as hobbies or job or other forms of art as enjoyment.

 

[TheVileOne]

I don't think The Witcher really looked like it would start becoming genre-medium transcending until the second game.

I see Sapkowski's points. Who could ever predict such a thing? Even if you like video games, we've seen plenty of ambitious game projects fail. It's just one of those things.

That being said, it'd be nice if he and his family could still profit from the games in some ways and receive royalties. Then again, if he signed away all the licensing rights for the games, that's on him.

For another example, Tom Clancy basically gave away all the IP rights to the name Tom Clancy to Ubisoft. Apparently this deal was set up so Ubisoft could control Clancy's multimedia empire without any additional fees and royalties. Now, Clancy did make money from the deal. Besides previous royalties he was getting from Ubisoft for his game licenses, his initial payment for the 2008 sale was $30 million.

In return, Ubisoft got total control over the existing Tom Clancy video game IP empire.

 

[Iceman]

I'm up to Keira Metz. This game has so many strong female characters.

 

[Iceman]

I don't think The Witcher really looked like it would start becoming genre-medium transcending until the second game.

I see Sapkowski's points. Who could ever predict such a thing? Even if you like video games, we've seen plenty of ambitious game projects fail. It's just one of those things.

That being said, it'd be nice if he and his family could still profit from the games in some ways and receive royalties. Then again, if he signed away all the licensing rights for the games, that's on him.

For another example, Tom Clancy basically gave away all the IP rights to the name Tom Clancy to Ubisoft. Apparently this deal was set up so Ubisoft could control Clancy's multimedia empire without any additional fees and royalties. Now, Clancy did make money from the deal. Besides previous royalties he was getting from Ubisoft for his game licenses, his initial payment for the 2008 sale was $30 million.

In return, Ubisoft got total control over the existing Tom Clancy video game IP empire.

It's true that this stuff is very hard to predict. But that's exactly why you should always keep at least some of the rights. Otherwise everybody would automatically be a loser in this situation as it can never be predicted. Take a decent chunk up front but also keep some share. If you're getting something like $30m up front in the Tom Clancy case then it doesn't matter quite so much as you are at least totally financially secure regardless.

 

[imaperson2]

I've never played any Witcher games but know that Witcher 3 is so well talked about. Is it worth picking up even if I go in blind to the previous games?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'm up to Keira Metz. This game has so many strong female characters.

Yeah, there are. Different motivations, different characteristics, all pretty distinct in their own way.

 

[Iceman]

I've never played any Witcher games but know that Witcher 3 is so well talked about. Is it worth picking up even if I go in blind to the previous games?

Better if you've played Witcher 2 but great regardless. If you don't want to play the previous games you could also watch walkthroughs to get up to speed (or read plot summaries). But even if you go in totally blind the experience will be one of the best fantasy RPGs around.

Yeah, there are. Different motivations, different characteristics, all pretty distinct in their own way.

I'm very impressed.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

I've never played any Witcher games but know that Witcher 3 is so well talked about. Is it worth picking up even if I go in blind to the previous games?

All of previous games are great, but the first is a strictly PC affair and its voice acting has not aged well. It also takes a little bit of work to get it to run on a modern machine. If you're on Xbox One you can play W2 via BC. It's a solid game, but it is one of the worst cases of consolitus since Invisible War.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The Witcher 2 is rather fantastic, including the 360 version. Arguably the best game on the 360.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

The Witcher 2 is rather fantastic, including the 360 version. Arguably the best game on the 360.

While I agree with this sentiment. It's literally half the length of its predecessor because it was designed to run on a 360. **** like that I cannot let go. It feels more like an extended prologue to the third game rather than a full release.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

While I agree with this sentiment. It's literally half the length of its predecessor because it was designed to run on a 360. **** like that I cannot let go. It feels more like an extended prologue to the third game rather than a full release.

I can't agree. In some ways it is like Mass Effect 2, in that it is a bridge story, that almost functions like a prologue. But the game unto itself has a fully realized world, story and characters. The bridging paths are both fully realized as well.

It is a much better game then the Witcher, and really not that far off the Witcher 3.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

I can't agree. In some ways it is like Mass Effect 2, in that it is a bridge story, that almost functions like a prologue. But the game unto itself has a fully realized world, story and characters. The bridging paths are both fully realized as well.

It is a much better game then the Witcher, and really not that far off the Witcher 3.

In terms of storytelling, voice acting and visuals, yes, but I'm one of those weird folks that prefers the rhythmic combat of the first game and the user interface was neutered for the console release. Things that you could just click on and do in the first game were stuck behind menus. The world spaces were also larger and had more going in the original game, but the story was smaller in scale. In the Witcher 2, it's other way around. The third game captures what was great about both games beautifully. I like the Witcher 2 don't get me wrong, but as a huge fan of the first game and primarily PC player, parts of it really rubbed me the wrong way. I kept thinking throughout it that they could have done so much more had they not been hindered by designing the game to inevitably run on ancient technology.
It wasn't as bad as Invisible War, but I got the same feelings from W2 of missed opportunities.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'm thankful they did. I can't even get The Witcher 2 to run on my laptop (shouldn't really, I know). I'm not a PC gamer, never had a machine that could keep up with whatever the modern games are at any given time. If CDPR hadn't brought Assassin's of Kings to Xbox I probably never would have been able to play it. And being a console gamer my whole life, I'm really happy they brought the series onto consoles. I only wish they'd brought the first game, too. I have it on my laptop, but sitting down and playing it outside of my comfort zone of my bedroom...I dunno, been a hard habit to break out of.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

I've been playing games on my computer since the Apple II, but I do understand that if you're not used to it, it can seem daunting, but we live in an age now where modern consoles are glorified midrange PCs anyway except the Switch which is the only console actually taking advantage of being a console. PC gaming is also more affordable than its ever been in the past. My first 3d accelerator card from back in the day cost me more than my entire setup now. I understand why they CD Projekt made the decisions they did with the Witcher 2 from a business perspective, and it worked out well for them in the end, but it still rubbed me the wrong way. They more than addressed these issues in the third game.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

In terms of storytelling, voice acting and visuals, yes, but I'm one of those weird folks that prefers the rhythmic combat of the first game and the user interface was neutered for the console release. Things that you could just click on and do in the first game were stuck behind menus. The world spaces were also larger and had more going in the original game, but the story was smaller in scale. In the Witcher 2, it's other way around. The third game captures what was great about both games beautifully. I like the Witcher 2 don't get me wrong, but as a huge fan of the first game and primarily PC player, parts of it really rubbed me the wrong way. I kept thinking throughout it that they could have done so much more had they not been hindered by designing the game to inevitably run on ancient technology.
It wasn't as bad as Invisible War, but I got the same feelings from W2 of missed opportunities.

I think the combat is so much better in the Witcher 2, then the first game. The first game, beyond being hard on the eyes, functioned like a game 5 years too old in terms of combat. The Witcher 2 actually started embracing the idea of a Witcher in combat. The speed and the reliance of movement.

There might be more world in the first game, but the second game made much better use of its world imo. It is again like the difference between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2.

It is strange to me you talk about the limitations of designing something that could work on consoles, when the first game is a ton more limited.

 

[Marvolo]

I've never played any Witcher games but know that Witcher 3 is so well talked about. Is it worth picking up even if I go in blind to the previous games?

I went into it blind, and understood the plot and fell in love with the game and the characters. The game does a good job orienting new comers to the franchise.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The only thing you really miss out on is the relationship with Triss, but they do a good job of catching you up in the W3.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

I think the combat is so much better in the Witcher 2, then the first game. The first game, beyond being hard on the eyes, functioned like a game 5 years too old in terms of combat. The Witcher 2 actually started embracing the idea of a Witcher in combat. The speed and the reliance of movement.

There might be more world in the first game, but the second game made much better use of its world imo. It is again like the difference between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2.

It is strange to me you talk about the limitations of designing something that could work on consoles, when the first game is a ton more limited.

Limitations in terms of scope and worldspace and the limitations of catering to a controller with is intrusive to UI. The first game embraced the Witcher's combat styles well enough, and it didn't have the broken backstab prenatally. It also handled battle preparations better which is almost useless in the second game because your buffs don't really last long enough to matter. Witcher 2 could have been on the same scale of it's successor had it been solely developed for mid to higher end PCs of the time (which the Xbox 360 wasn't even close to comparing to), but Projekt Red wanted to make a console game and from a business perspective, that made a lot of sense for the time. I don't expect folks to agree with me but when the Witcher 2 ended, I felt it was rather abrupt, I expected another 10-20 hours because of where it ended with the war starting and my experience with the previous game. In the end, I still feel the game was consolized and not for the better. The Witcher 3 addressed a lot of the issues.

Again, I don't hate the game, as a console RPG, I'll take Assassins of Kings over Bethesda's trash and the Dragon Age games any day, but there were missed opportunities. Imagine if the W2 had been on the scale of W3 when it was released, where RPG's would be.

 

[Marvolo]

Witcher 2 could not have been that large scaled on the 360 nor could the franchise thrive as much if it had remained a PC exclusive. If a smaller Witcher 2 on consoles is what was required to get Witcher 3 I consider that an acceptable price to pay.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Limitations in terms of scope and worldspace and the limitations of catering to a controller with is intrusive to UI. The first game embraced the Witcher's combat styles well enough, and it didn't have the broken backstab prenatally. It also handled battle preparations better which is almost useless in the second game because your buffs don't really last long enough to matter. Witcher 2 could have been on the same scale of it's successor had it been solely developed for mid to higher end PCs of the time (which the Xbox 360 wasn't even close to comparing to), but Projekt Red wanted to make a console game and from a business perspective, that made a lot of sense for the time. I don't expect folks to agree with me but when the Witcher 2 ended, I felt it was rather abrupt, I expected another 10-20 hours because of where it ended with the war starting and my experience with the previous game. In the end, I still feel the game was consolized and not for the better. The Witcher 3 addressed a lot of the issues.

Again, I don't hate the game, as a console RPG, I'll take Assassins of Kings over Bethesda's trash and the Dragon Age games any day, but there were missed opportunities. Imagine if the W2 had been on the scale of W3 when it was released, where RPG's would be.

If the Witcher 2 is the result of limitations, it was a lot better game for it then what came before. It was my favorite RPG until the Witcher 3 hit. And considering it led to the Witcher 3, which has way more in common with 2 then 1, then well the series was all the better for it.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

If the Witcher 2 is the result of limitations, it was a lot better game for it then what came before. It was my favorite RPG until the Witcher 3 hit. And considering it led to the Witcher 3, which has way more in common with 2 then 1, then well the series was all the better for it.

From a gameplay perspective yes, it does have more in common with 2, but there are just as many callbacks to the first game to the point where it's almost deceptive. When I played Wild Hunt, I thought it was just going to call back to Assassin's, but the further I got in, the happier I was that they made those callbacks to the original. "Message from an Old Friend" made me particularly happy.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

From a gameplay perspective yes, it does have more in common with 2, but there are just as many callbacks to the first game to the point where it's almost deceptive. When I played Wild Hunt, I thought it was just going to call back to Assassin's, but the further I got in, the happier I was that they made those callbacks to the original. "Message from an Old Friend" made me particularly happy.

The Witcher 3 calls back to the entire series of the Witcher, including the two games. It is rather great in that way. Whether it is subtle or more overt, it all works. Shani in Heart of Stone might be my favorite. Sadly they cut out one major returning character because of time. They also cut arguably the coolest idea for a level outside of the siege saldy. Stupid time limitations.

 

[James]

I went into it blind, and understood the plot and fell in love with the game and the characters. The game does a good job orienting new comers to the franchise.

Same here. I knew nothing of The Witcher series (apart from playing 20 minutes of Witcher 2, which I couldn't get into), and ended up loving The Witcher 3. Other than Geralt being a little bit too much of a cool-cat a lot of the time, the bar-raising quality of The Witcher 3 makes it's achievement difficult to explain. It also puts many, many other games and their developers to shame.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

The Witcher 3 calls back to the entire series of the Witcher, including the two games. It is rather great in that way. Whether it is subtle or more overt, it all works. Shani in Heart of Stone might be my favorite. Sadly they cut out one major returning character because of time. They also cut arguably the coolest idea for a level outside of the siege saldy. Stupid time limitations.

indeed, is he ever brought up in game? I honestly can't remember?