I would rather play EA games on GOG rather than Origin anyways.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rumor CD Projekt RED To Sign A Publishing Deal Or Be Bought By Electronic Arts
- Thread starter statham
- Start date
I would rather play EA games on GOG rather than Origin anyways.
Agreed, this couldnt be more obvious. Now, I know some apologists like to point out that, in the final stages of development, artists, modelers, quest designers, etc. may be freed up to work on new content while scripters, programmers, etc. focus on optimization and bug fixing but let's be real here, CDPR even went so far as to delay the final DLC under the pretense of requiring more development time, which was in fact nothing more than a transparent ploy to provide semi-plausible cover for their decision to cut the content in the first place. And all so they could wage a duplicitous campaign to curry favor with credulous gamers.
Yes, absolutely. The expansion pass appeared in SteamDB on the same day that the expansions were announced, but per the terms of the Potsdam Agreement (to which CDPR was a signatory), CDPR was contractually obligated to disclose the existence of expansion content 1 year in advance of its date of first sale, which, in the interests of misleading consumers, CDPR refused to do.
Fantastic point. First of all, most people believe that bish merely verifies that a poster is in a position to know what the poster claims to know and that generally, bish doesn't make any judgements as to the veracity of the claims themselves. This is, of course, inaccurate. In actuality, bish personally directs a team of researchers who compile detailed dossiers on prospective leakers and bish further insists that all information be confirmed with no fewer than two independent sources before signing off on publication. So, if it came from a bish-verified insider, there's absolutely no question that the information is accurate.
Finally, if we examine what the poster actually said, which was that PR [was] creating an overblown vision of a game that doesnt exist while the team [was] in crazy crunch time for a over a year, and that consumers [shouldnt] preorder the game (especially on consoles) and wait for reviews, well, his warning was well taken, and with the critical and commercial failure of Witcher 3, it's no surprise that EA is looking to buy out a now seriously crippled CDPR.
I'm not surprised. I've been reading for a while now that CD Projekt RED's management is basically just in it for the money, so them signing a publishing deal/being bought out is pretty predictable.
And for people not buying that, there's always the Glassdoor page which paints a pretty damning picture of CDPR.
DXLelouch153
Banned
i dont want their games on that piece of shit Origin
i prefer steam and dont like using a credit card
i prefer steam and dont like using a credit card
So why would EA buy CDPR? Like does no one ask them selves this question? What exactly would they get out of the deal? The Witcher IP? Maybe, but is that worth it?
So no, it doesn't make sense on any level really. Well, unless you still got a chip on your shoulder about them, then everything makes total sense.
So no, it doesn't make sense on any level really. Well, unless you still got a chip on your shoulder about them, then everything makes total sense.
He's talking about the free 'DLC', not the paid DLC that is still coming. The only thing CD Project Red needs to be praised for is their wording. Instead of calling it 'content patches', they called those small releases 'free DLC' and the hardcore crowd went nuts. I recall someone from Paradox Interactive noting this when AngryJoe asked about their DLC policy. Every patch they add a lot of free content, but because it's part of the standard patch no one is impressed by it except the really hardcore fans of their games.
ROUGE_BLOCK
Member
Thank god this is fake. CDPR needs to be a free as bird, not locked in cage filled with microtransactions and seasons passes for 15 minutes worth of DLC and whatever other derogatory thing I can think of that would make me hate this false rumour more.
Some day people critising CDPR for not having enough a pro consumer stance will have to explain why beyond "their free DLC is cut content" (especially while propping up EA, who does the paid day 1 DLC all the time). I'm not sure what policy of theirs is lacking that people feel their are not being catered to enough. They market the fact that they don't do the shit the big pubs do, but it's also the truth. It's like people take offence with them not being humble about it.
And, unlike bethestha, CDPR explained prescisely what you get in their 2 expansions, including lengh and setting.
Bad working conditions are a problem but those have little to do with a pro consumer stance (in fact, consumers usually benefit from it).
I've never heard anyone familiar with paradox saying they are a bad publisher. People are pretty high on their games an post release support as well.
Iastfan112
Neo Member
Big Paradox fan but the reason they don't get a ton of praise is three fold: DLC is expensive and there is a lot of it. Common Sense is mostly about development(and hell they mostly just separated building and monarch points based development. A smattering of minor, albeit helpful changes for 15 dollars is pretty steep. Even just getting the gameplay dlc with the base game would run well over 100 dollars. Finally, the free part of their dlc tends to have a lot more bug fixes or balance tweaks than actual content.
Not only that, but Paradox does charge for shit like unit packs which is would be akin to CDPR charging for the alternate Triss and Yenn outfits.
I'm fine with Paradox's dlc practices but CDPR does things significantly better.
AHA-Lambda
Member
It ain't happening.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...egarding-selling-cd-projekt-red-or-gog-period
Sorry if old.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...egarding-selling-cd-projekt-red-or-gog-period
Sorry if old.
RipperGrim
Member
Wow what a surprise, it was bullshit. I find some people in Neogaf need to make CDPR look shit truly baffling, like they can't wait to say "Ha I knew they were no different than any of those shitty companies, you were all fools to think they were decent to consumers!" It happens in nearly every thread about them.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Not entirely true. Sure, they contain a lot of bug fixes because they also function as normal game patches, but if you compare vanilla Crusader Kings 2 and EU4 with how they looked near release you'll see that even without the expansions the games look and feel completely different.
The comparison between the alternate skins and the unit packs is also not quite fair IMO since the Triss, Yenn and Ciri skins are just one alternate, while the unit packs always add ten or more sprites that are animated seperately. That's not remotely the same as just releasing a remodeled version of the same thing. A more accurate comparison would be the character portraits in CK2, which they stopped releasing seperately from the DLC because people (rightly so) complained.
Anyway, that wasn't the point. My point was that many developers do exactly the same thing as CD Project Red, they just don't sell it like they do.
Too bad none of the Big Three can pull the tables under EA and buy them out although theoretically MS probably can. As much as CDPR are doing reasonably well, its all about the benjamins in thr end, so now the founders are filthy rich and buy half of Poland and Half of CDPR bail on the studio. EA ia alwaus a re-assurancr of jib security alright :S
Mad Season
Banned
lol
If it does happen, we should change the post to say: Please EA do not pull an Activision and make CDPR work on crap like Destiny.