The Witcher on Netflix.

[Derfel Cadarn]

CDP might be able to argue that the games' success are mostly why the books got translated into English and sold well.

 

[polishgenius]

Why is Sapkowski considered an unpleasant individual? I don't really know anything about him.

[Fez]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Yeah, creators aren't necessarily nice people or wise people, doesn't really change the fact that CDPR has made a much greater success from his work then anyone ever imagined. When the LOTR actors banded together to get a substantial bonus because if how successful the films were, I don't recall too many people saying the should just suck it.

I don't know enough about the LOTR actor situation to specifically comment on that, but I will say that's also a difference between asking for a bonus/raise and trying to strongarm a company for one. The letter from Sapkowski included:

Careful reading of your contracts concluded with the Author might lead one to conclude that, if the company did effectively acquire any copyright at all, it concerned only the first in a series of games, and therefore distribution of all other games, including their expansions, add-ons etc., is, simply speaking, unlawful.

That to me reads like a threat to try to file suit against the second or third games from continuing to be sold. Which is a step way beyond asking for a bonus and appealing to a company's desire for good PR and a good continued working relation (not that CDPR and he have a good one).

 

Also, the fact that a letter from a Polish author (presumably with Polish lawyers since its about a Polish legal provision) sent to a Polish company was written in English suggests to me that something else is going on, something that would involve an entity that does use English; like, say, Netflix. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out Sapkowski signed some minor right away to CDPR that somehow affects the Netflix production in some way (or his ability to profit off it) and this is the opening salvo in trying to get CDPR to give back whatever it is in exchange for all monetary demands being dropped. Though that's all just my conjecture.

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

I don't know enough about the LOTR actor situation to specifically comment on that, but I will say that's also a difference between asking for a bonus/raise and trying to strongarm a company for one. The letter from Sapkowski included:

We have no idea what private communications have happened, if any, on the subject prior to the letter. Assuming that Sapkowski has never spoken to them privately about wanting more for the rights seems like a big leap. But it's worth noting that the LotR actors banding together to get bonuses became public knowledge after private negotiations had faltered. I suspect there's more similarity than difference, except it seems Sapkowski actually has some sort of legal leg to stand on due to Polish law whereas the actors really didn't have anything other than public good will on their side.

 

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

 

Also, the fact that a letter from a Polish author (presumably with Polish lawyers since its about a Polish legal provision) sent to a Polish company was written in English suggests to me that something else is going on, something that would involve an entity that does use English; like, say, Netflix. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out Sapkowski signed some minor right away to CDPR that somehow affects the Netflix production in some way (or his ability to profit off it) and this is the opening salvo in trying to get CDPR to give back whatever it is in exchange for all monetary demands being dropped. Though that's all just my conjecture.

I suspect it's likelier that the lawyers he retained for the Netflix deal took a look at his CDPR contract when hammering out stuff with Netflix, and figured there was a potential legal case for him to get more compensation (and them to get more billable hours), and not just a case based on public good will.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

The proper and ethical result should probably be a couple million (from 2015-2018 they've cleared over $220 million in profit, after taxes and expenses, so $2 million would be like a retroactive 1% royalty on net profit

 

Ha. I'm wondering how much of those profits have been poured back into Cyberpunk 2077 (probably around half, from the look of it).

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But it's too expensive to make high production value AAA games without nickle and diming the gamers with lootboxes, micro-transactions and live services. How could CDPR make $200 million in profits from 3 single player games with just a handful of well crafted and expansive DLC?

Because The Witcher 3 had a budget of about $60 million IIRC (including marketing), which is about a quarter of what it would have been if a game of that size and scope had been made in the UK or USA. The game also sold absolute shitloads, up to around 25 million. It's actually selling faster than Fallout 4 and closing down on sales of Skyrim, two of the most successful single-player video games of the last decade.

Also, The Witcher 3 has the critical reputation of being the best single-player AAA RPG of this century, which has been driving a steady spate of sales ever since release, plus CDPR have been clever in advertising discounts and getting the game out there to as many people as possible.

[Ran]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

 

I suspect it's likelier that the lawyers he retained for the Netflix deal took a look at his CDPR contract when hammering out stuff with Netflix, and figured there was a potential legal case for him to get more compensation (and them to get more billable hours), and not just a case based on public good will.

Just updating this, because re-reading, it seems CDPR produced the English version themselves to post on their site in the section for investors. So it was sent in Polish by the lawyers.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Why is Sapkowski considered an unpleasant individual? I don't really know anything about him.

By some accounts CDPR is not a very pleasant company.

[3CityApache]

Was just about to say it was originally sent in Polish. 

The general consensus around here in Poland is, that despite the law he has virtually zero chance to win this in court and what he's really counting on is a settlement of maybe 3-4 m zlotys (less than $ 1 m). 

Some lawyers even say CDPR should counter sue him for causing the drop in company's share price. 

Polishgenius, because he is an arrogant and self-centered jerk. 

[The Anti-Targ]

9 hours ago, Ran said:

Yeah, creators aren't necessarily nice people or wise people, doesn't really change the fact that CDPR has made a much greater success from his work then anyone ever imagined. When the LOTR actors banded together to get a substantial bonus because if how successful the films were, I don't recall too many people saying the should just suck it.

Hmmm, IIRC it wasn't as simple as that. I don't know how things went down with the non-NZ cast. But NZ cast got bupkiss out of LOTR other than the wages they earned for time on the movies. Jackson, Walsh and Boyens sued New Line for more money for themselves, though I think their claim was that New Line stiffed them out of money their contracts said they'd get.

What the LOTR success did do was give Jackson enough influence to demand that at least the NZ actors who played Dwarfs in Thorin's company of Dwarfs in the Hobbit got residuals deals like the US/UK cast members do. Unions for NZ actors are pretty much a non-entity. Then shit went down with the Aussie actors union and the pretty weak NZ actors union (the Aussie union wanted to blacklist the movie, the NZ union just wanted to get a fair deal). But that, hatchet job by the Aussie union was used by WB and the NZ govt of the time to shaft the actors on employment conditions (and ti give an even bigger tax break to the studio than the pretty generous one that already existed for LOTR), so that really the only actors who made bank on the movie were the international cast and a handful of NZ actors who played significant roles and got the residuals deal Jackson had demanded. So over all I would say NZ actors feel highly aggrieved about the Hobbit movies, and rather underpaid for LOTR. Jackson sort of sold his soul to keep the movie production in NZ, and well we know how the movies tuned out. I guess the one good thing is the Hobbit Movies still made a bucket of cash, which means some NZ actors got a decent payday.

Lindsay Ellis did a really good piece on the shit show behind the scenes of the Hobbit in her part 3/2 Hobbit post mortem, available on Youtube. If people haven't watched it I recommend it. The whole series is worth a watch. More watchable than the Hobbit movies for sure. It's quite sad to see the dejected expressions on Jackson's face. You can tell his heart was really not in it.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

14 hours ago, Ran said:

Yeah, creators aren't necessarily nice people or wise people, doesn't really change the fact that CDPR has made a much greater success from his work then anyone ever imagined. When the LOTR actors banded together to get a substantial bonus because if how successful the films were, I don't recall too many people saying the should just suck it.

I think it's just his total disregard for the games, his seeming superiority to the creators of the game, and his insistence that these inferior people owe him money now. Ugh. I think CDPR should just float him a couple mil. or redo the deal beginning with the next Witcher game--or both. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

By some accounts CDPR is not a very pleasant company.

I don't know...they seem to be consumer friendly. No loot boxes, no paid dlc (except expansions). They consistently patch, update, and give their fans new, better editions of their games. Enhanced editions are free upgrades (which was something really out of the norm back when the first Witcher game gave this free upgrade). If you ever bought a physical copy of the Witcher, they sent you a free digital download of the game (a couple of years later). I like them. I think they do business with their customers in mind.

[Ran]

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Hmmm, IIRC it wasn't as simple as that. I don't know how things went down with the non-NZ cast. But NZ cast got bupkiss out of LOTR other than the wages they earned for time on the movies. Jackson, Walsh and Boyens sued New Line for more money for themselves, though I think their claim was that New Line stiffed them out of money their contracts said they'd get.

 

That's something else, and mostly the Hobbit, IIRC, I'm talking about this -- eighteen above-the-line actors LotR -- Gandalf, Frodo, Aragorn, etc. -- all demanding bigger bonuses in light of the success of the films, including actors who did not have any proft-participation deals at all.

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

I think it's just his total disregard for the games, his seeming superiority to the creators of the game, and his insistence that these inferior people owe him money now. Ugh. I think CDPR should just float him a couple mil. or redo the deal beginning with the next Witcher game--or both. 

Sure. He's not a pleasant guy at all. Saw him at Eurocon and he comes off as an asshat. But even asshats should merit ethical compensation when their creation is an integral part of someone else's success.

[karaddin]

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Lindsay Ellis did a really good piece on the shit show behind the scenes of the Hobbit in her part 3/2 Hobbit post mortem, available on Youtube. If people haven't watched it I recommend it. The whole series is worth a watch. More watchable than the Hobbit movies for sure. It's quite sad to see the dejected expressions on Jackson's face. You can tell his heart was really not in it.

 

That video was a real eye opener, I had no idea what what had gone down with the actors involved. Seconding the recommendation for the whole series, its great.

[Gorn]

20 hours ago, Ran said:

The basis per his lawyers is that Polish law has protections for artists having their rights exploited if the licensee ends up earning much more than was expected.

I think he has a moral case that regardless of his lack of business acumen and regardless of the fact that he's a pretty unpleasant person, his work is vital to the success of CDPR's franchise and that it would be a show of good will and respect to share in some of that. And CDPR's response suggests that they aren't rejecting the argument. They aren't going to agree to 16 million, but that's doubtless just an opening position. The proper and ethical result should probably be a couple million (from 2015-2018 they've cleared over $220 million in profit, after taxes and expenses, so $2 million would be like a retroactive 1% royalty on net profit) and a percentage of any further products (including DLC) that uses the setting.

The $220 million profit figure is probably misleading. CDPR owns a highly successful online game store, www.gog.com. I assume most of their profits came from there, and not from the Witcher games themselves.

[GallowKnight]

9 minutes ago, Gorn said:

The $220 million profit figure is probably misleading. CDPR owns a highly successful online game store, www.gog.com. I assume most of their profits came from there, and not from the Witcher games themselves.

GOG is owned by CDProjekt, CDPR’s mother company, not CDPR themselves.

[Ran]

6 minutes ago, GallowKnight said:

CDProjekt, CDPR’s mother company, owns GOG not CDPR.

Indeed. The profit statements I noted were for CDP, but if you look here you'll see why the vast majority of that $220 million in profit is specifically from Witcher. They break down where earnings come from, and GOG is about 11% of their overall profit in the first half of 2017 (a bit over $3.3mm from GoG vs. 28.2m from CDPR) , and that's when the sales from Witcher have been tapering off. GoG was 2% of their overall profit in 2016. 

 

[Gorn]

Thanks, I assumed that GoG was more profitable than that. I guess I wasn't aware what an amazing success the Witcher games were.

[Fez]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

Sure. He's not a pleasant guy at all. Saw him at Eurocon and he comes off as an asshat. But even asshats should merit ethical compensation when their creation is an integral part of someone else's success.

I strongly disagree that ethical compensation means breaking a contract that was signed with no evidence of the company being misleading or strongarming the creator, and indeed the company had offered more favorable terms than what the creator signed. Because otherwise, if we're saying compensation can be retroactively changed based on profits, than logically that also means that companies should be able to demand money back from creators if the finished product lost money.

If both parties feel its in their best interest to change contract terms (like a studio giving actors more money either for the PR or to improve their relationship with them), sure, go nuts. But I've no patience for this kind of one-sided demand with the implied threat of legal action.

 

7 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

I don't know...they seem to be consumer friendly. No loot boxes, no paid dlc (except expansions). They consistently patch, update, and give their fans new, better editions of their games. Enhanced editions are free upgrades (which was something really out of the norm back when the first Witcher game gave this free upgrade). If you ever bought a physical copy of the Witcher, they sent you a free digital download of the game (a couple of years later). I like them. I think they do business with their customers in mind.

CDPR is great for consumers; they aren't so great for their employees, who, reports say, work in a state of near-constant crunch throughout the development cycle. Which is absolutely an argument for them to get additional compensation (and/or better working conditions) and I think they have a much better ethical ground for demanding it; though I wouldn't be surprised if they don't out of fear just getting fired and replaced.

[Werthead]

Quote

By some accounts CDPR is not a very pleasant company.

By most accounts they are a pretty decent company, but they were working on workload/deadline situations for The Witcher 3 which required the entire studio to go into crunch for about a year and a half, which is not great (that's like Telltale levels of insanity) and led to a lot of staff leaving.

Apparently the studio is now massively more financially secure, their new model is having a lot longer lead times for games of that scope whilst having smaller games and GoG ticking along in the background, and they've now got a lot more US and employees from other EU countries who are making sure things don't get that unpleasant again (though, with the best will in the world, some level of crunch always happens at the end of development, but TW3 took it to another level).

[briantw]

21 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

By some accounts CDPR is not a very pleasant company.

I think you could say that about most video game companies.  The nature of the business seems to lead to terrible working conditions and too many hours.  

Unless you get to work for a company like Valve where you don't actually have to get anything done, of course.