I saw them, and they indeed sucked. I'm upset at that person, not the company.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Cyberpunk 2077 looks amazing, but I’m conflicted about supporting CD Projekt Red with the doubt they’ve cast around their social stances.
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
- Status
I saw them, and they indeed sucked. I'm upset at that person, not the company.
Your feeling a need to defend and block the shots for a literal made up corporate construct - the company itself - is honestly pretty weird.
What's actually "fucking cowardly" is mocking and disregarding members of the LGBTQ+ community for not buying a game in favour of defending the above and attempting to rid it of blame.
The company knowingly employed a GamerGator. You understand that, right? The company is at fault.
People can do both. It's possible for both an employee and the company that hired that employee to both be at fault for a failing.
Then how are you upset at a made up construct? I get upset with shitty people. If everything is guilty by association then we have to live in isolation.
How come political values are used as a shitty thing to have here.
But when loot boxes and whatnot are involved, it's ok to have political values worth more than entertainment.
'Political stances' makes it seem like we're having a debate over the marginal tax rate. This is something much more important and human - there are a lot of people for whom stomping out transphobia is more important than an entertainment product.
They think others shouldn't care about a company's progressive or regressive stances and attitudes because they aren't intrinsically tied to gameplay. They don't want to acknowledge that there are issues that go beyond just gameplay.
Having an issue with people levying criticism at a company for the actions of their staff and subsequently management in dealing with said situation, is really fucking weird lol.
It's not a shitty thing to have. Lots of people make these complaints and go buy the games anyway. Do something about it other than putting out ineffective noise. Same for loot boxes. Don't buy that shit if you don't like it. People buying into that business model en masse emboldens corporations.
These companies aren't your friends. Until things hit their bottom line, they have no true incentive to change beyond pr niceties.
What's the cost of replacing one underpaid community moderator versus losing out on sales to LGBTQ fantasy game consumers? That one is an easy calculation for CDPR in the example cited earlier.
But, of course, that's nonsense. We're talking about Cyberpunk! It doesn't get a whole lot more political* than cyberpunk!
*in a mainstream gaming product, etc etc etc
No, I just think unless you're willing to not buy into something and publicly make other people not buy it, nothing will change.
This is a video game, an entertainment product. You can put your dollar and hours into supporting other games and developers with similar values and you'll feel way better about it.
This is an easy one. This isn't loot boxes. This isn't a monetization system with numerous moving parts. This is choosing not to suck, and choosing not to suck is free.
As far as what pays more, I'd say that being able to sell to the LGBTQ world is worth more than making a handful of far-right gamers (Ian Miles Cheong, etc) happy with your bad tweets.
That CDPR keeps having issues with the LGBTQ world likely speaks to problems with the culture at the company, not one of insufficient economic incentive to not suck.
Don't buy the game then. Stomping out transphobia is objectively more important than putting 100 of your hours into this game.
I don't mean you personally, just generically "you", whoever is reading it
We also have games media, maybe more of them should do some real, active journalism on this front instead of fawning over everything as I've seen them do since I was 15.
People are certainly free to make moral decisions about what they buy and don't buy, but I'd say a better idea would be to wait for the game to come out and get word about whether it's worth supporting.
The games themselves are more of a statement about the values of the company than a twitter account run by some 19 year old social media manager.
The games themselves are more of a statement about the values of the company than a twitter account run by some 19 year old social media manager.
And nothing will change in terms of climate change just because my neighbor goes out and buys and electric car but we don't always do things just because we believe they'll have the maximum impact on an issue but because doing nothing or not caring is even worse. Excersise won't stop a person from dying but that doesn't mean it's pointless.
The management policies, reactions and proactiveness in ensuring elements are put in place so issues don't recur is more of a statement about the values of a company than the single action of an employee.
What exactly is a company to you? You've implied that all the employees of CDPR are complicit in those transphobic tweets and the sweat shop work environment. Are there other social media posts, statements, or press releases that proves a majority of CDPR employees are bad people?
Even in your example, people won't switch to electrical on a mass scale until there's economic incentive to do so even if it's objectively better and less shitty.
You buy an electric car, then you evangelize the shit out of it and when it's cheaper, maybe one friend will listen and buy it, then another, then another, for fifty fucking years before you make a dent
So has CDPR (Not GoG, which people here are have been adamant aren't the same person when it's mentioned he was fired) had a recurring issue with it?
Yes. Since CDPR and GOG are the same company, what happens on the GOG account reflects on CDPR.
Only one I know of was the "Assume their gender" tweet mentioned in the OP. What were the others?
When CDPR wholly owns GoG then I'm not willing to grant them the favour of complete distinction when both are putting out troubling tweets regarding the exact same thing.
If we are going to be technical about it, the 'Sorry To Those Who Were Offended' non-apology would count, but really I misremembered the source of each bad tweet so I edited my post.
Well one point here is that CDPR doesn't own GoG, CD Project does. Red is the development studio.
It would be like holding Todd Howard's studio Bethesda Game Studios responsible for something that someone at Arkane (owned by Bethesda Softworks) tweeted.
Second, as mentioned, that guy was fired. Clearly that kind of messaging isn't tolerated.
There are people who, again, knowingly hired a gamergate supporter to represent GOG. Not work behind-the-scenes but to serve as the public mouthpiece of the company.
KNOWINGLY. They are people who saw literal gamergate apologia on the hire's linkedin account and accepted him into the company. If they did not see it (it was certainly THERE, and a quick check on the threads about their "#wontbeerased" -- I was there for that, I remember the discussion -- can easily demonstrate that) then they failed to do their due diligence.
These people, the ones who are responsible for this hiring and overseeing how their company is represented by these hires, are financially compensated when people use their storefront despite sympathising with or at least condoning the worst fucking goddamn opinions in the entire goddamn planet.
If you cannot accept this argument then there is no point in arguing with you further.
Yeh I slipped and put the red on there iny my early morning haze. Honestly not the best time to be trying to delve into this, likely still isn't when I consider the bird's nest atop my head and the muted dial-up sounds within when my brain tries to connect to anything.
Fundamentally that changes little for me though, and I can get that that's a strict reaction to something for someone, nonsensical even with some of the replies here and perhaps your own referencing of Bethesda and their structure. So, as you appear to be going in earnest I'll try to break it down and foray into the wood of words once more. In doing so I'll likely cover points not in your post, perhaps you completely agree with them, just to give some bedrock around it considering some of the replies here.
This is someone choosing not to buy a game, that's it.
It's easy to envisage or act like people unhappy in this thread are red-eyed and crazed, frothing at the mouth, frantically typing their posts as they conitnue to stab needles into tiny Geralt dolls. In reality though, it's just people who are considering their purchasing decision and deciding they don't feel comfortable buying an entertainment product.
The attempt to paint people with the issue as being at an extreme, or overreacting is a common one. It's a tired tactic to win cheap points in the argument. If you can dismiss this all as someone throwing a tantrum and doing something totally unreasonable then you're golden. Look how upset this person is, they must be unstable. They're obviously just being emotional.
People blame companies for the actions over issues, that's how accountability works in the corporate world.
People blame, criticize and hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees. This really isn't anything that should need to be explained and the fact we've had people doing so is frankly bizarre. A company as it's core is a fictional entity. It literally doesn't exist. You have offices, employees, money, product, letterheaded paper and more. You pieces of paper and legal documents that define what the company is, who owns it and more but the actual company itself is immaterial.
Which is kind of the whole point. You have this entity to challenge and criticize, or respect and follow. One purpose of this shell is very much to provide a blank form capture for the business or institution as a whole, as opposed to any singular individual. So the idea that noone should criticize a company in favour of an individual is one that's so childlike in its naivety I can't take it seriously, especially if you're growing up in any modern society. When you go on to suggest it's "fucking cowardly" to criticize a company instead of directly targetting specific employees then, sorry, but this abundantly clear that your only issue with this all is that it's CDPR/CDP/GoG involved, who have happened to make some absolutely stellar video games in their past.
I highly doubt if they saw someone criticizing one of the major banks or supermarkets they'd be willing to type paragraph upon paragraph about how it's "fucking cowardly" to attack a company instead of individual people.
It wasn't the company though, it was a person on twitter!
Again, this level of naivety and feigned ignorance over things that are common practice in every other facet of business and industry is one that's hard to take seriously. The person didn't just fart and land on the desk in the office, primed to write a shitty tweet. They were hired, they were told the remits of their position, they may or may not have had the tweet vetted by at least one other employee before it was sent – and yes, I have worked within marketing departments of large organizations. It's rarely some spotted teen who's been allowed to run rampant with the front-facing image of the company without restriction.
That's what this is, and that's what twitter is. It's a very conscious front-face to your company that can be used to directly engage with your community. Anyone hiring for, and anyone applying for, this position would know this and understand the importance of it.
"Gut writes shitty tweet, guy gets fired" is a reduction of what happens.
Hiring for the above positions should rely on some background into the person their hiring's activity on social media, not least because this person is front-facing in a digital position where they'll actively been communicating on your behalf. It's not some NSA level nonsense, just a cursory scroll through public pages to get a sense of some of their vocal positions. It's basic due-dilligence for the role, done in minutes while assessing candidates. So it's likely it occured and nothing was raised, but it's a potential area for things like this to be caught.
So you've got your written job spec (likely written/agreed by people outside of the hiring manager). You have your hiring manager. Now you've hired the little would-be devil. You have an induction, you train him. At this point you might be congizent of the fact you've had prior twitter controversies within your family of companies, and knowing how one can affect the other perhaps you labour the point of being careful what to post. It's not comprehensive but it's key guidance on the tone your company wishes to write with, the remits of what they can and can't go for (politics, social issues, competition, the like). This is an important step as it's the bridge between their past experience within media positions, and how you would like for them to represent you. This can be as vague and as strict as it likes, but it's defined by the client/employer.
So.. guy writes shitty tweet.. From this point it's not even about the guy any more. That part of the story is locked in time, and now the only matter of meaning is how the management and wider entity react.
It's here where people galvanise their long lasting opinions, not the actual act.
Employees have done shit things in abundance, it's a tricky thing for a company to handle granted but if done right it can almost completely reverse the tide of good-will. This is because we largely recognise that yes, any employee of a company can go rogue and do whatever so it can be hard to not have such an event occur within a large organization over the span of many years. Instead it shifts to how this event is handled, whether similar events have occured recently, how swiftly a response is made, what that response is and whether ongoing any shift or change. It varies from situation from situation but you get the gist of it.
In this case it's where most people feel GOG and CDP have let the ball drop.
Firing the person isn't the start and end of this, nor is it particularly worthy of praise (nor scorn either). You would expect any major company to fire someone over transphobic tweets. There's poorly worded tweets and then there's mocking the entire notion of gender identity. We've established there's internal scrutiny to be cast on the hiring and training process, but now it shifts to how they were fired and how that was communicated with those hurt.
"It's gotten too much" as the sole reason for firing someone for the above is pathetic, and – with that we have – honestly doesn't point to much more than "you've become more hassle than you're worth to us".
Firing the person certainly shows they understand that there was a negative reaction to their actions, but in isolation it doesn't indicate much more. You have a very real financial and business incentive to fire them, even outside of any concern for LGBTQ+ rights. So further clarification is needed at that stage, to see whether CDP/GOG understand the ramifications of the tweet within the community and how it's hurt players. You'd want a statement put out pretty prompty to reassure that, to which we got:
Which, as with the above, misses the mark again. "Sorry to all those offended" is not an apology for the action. It's an apology solely if it offended you, when it should be an apology regardless because the issue is the mocking in the tweet not the reaction to it. Harming somoene is rarely anyone's intention, so again – nothing really much here. No outreach toward the trans and NB community, just a "sorry for the offense".
So it's felt that nothing was really understood in what was actually wrong in the scenario, despite a corrective action (the firing) being made. Then you have this pop up:
Which is responded to with this:
Even less understanding and zero apology. Which will lead onto..
GOG, CDP and CDPR are all separate!
In the wake of the GOG tweet the fired community manager said this:
..because that's exactly what it was. CDP aren't stupid, they're more than aware that people interlink the three entities and they were always going to when they never shied away, or attempted to distinguish themselves from, the association.
Naturally they want all of the good will from The Witcher 3 and the CDPR brand to splash over onto GOG and it has. However you can't try and have that be a one way street. If you're congizent of the fact that your brands are associated and you're leveraging good will from that, then you need to accept that if one is stained by something like a PR mishap then it is likely to have consequences for the wider group. Certainly if you're having repeat issues on social media, there should be a focus on ensuring group-wide communications are consistent and managed.
So when you find a situation where two parts of this connected group are getting in hot water about mocking the exact same topic, and when apologies or no-apology is given in the wake are unsatisfactory you might land on not wishing to support any aspect of CDP until they make strides toward changing that attitude, and actually understanding the impact the actions have had within the community. Frankly, if they don't show much regard for the community in the wake of it being mocked when why should the community follow them blindly into the next purchase?
Vote with your wallets!
Ah yes, the long-repeated mantra that's brought out and vigirously waved around when microtransactions, loot boxes, sub-60fps performance and the like are found in games. We must vote with our wallets to discourage these actions so that they might alter them in the future!
Except when it comes to trans and NB rights when met against CDPR. If it was loot boxes and The Witcher 4, there'd be an uproar and voting of wallets. If there were transphobic comments put out by an EA social media account for which little was done to remedy the issue, people would cry to vote with our wallets.
This combination though; we have a minority group that's commonly not taken seriously against one of the most beloved developers this generation, with legions of people who feel emotionally invested because these are the people that made their game of the generation. This becomes a little different. It shouldn't, but it does and it's something that's obvious in a number of interactions in the thread.
Still not done?
That's all to say that choosing to not buy a product from a company because of their actions, and how that's affected you, is nothing new. It's nothing extreme. It happens in every B2C and B2B industry and it's certainly nothing worthy of rebuke. It's an incredibly harmless action that the majority here promote unless it's within a certain few set of circumstances.
Last edited:
Don't let anyone else sway your opinion. If you don't wish to support the devs then don't buy their game.
OP / Kyuuji
If you want to boycott the game, then that's what you should do. NO ONE else has the right to tell you what to do with your money. You should tell other people to screw off when it comes to your own money
I'm not going to criticize or look down on people who boycott games, because it's not my money
On the other hand... I expect people to not be hypocrites. So no one else should criticize someone for choosing to buy that game either. If it's not your (general "you") money, then mind your own fucking business.
I'm going to buy what I want, and I don't give one rat's ass what anyone else thinks. Unless they're going to pay for it, then I will respect it out of appreciation. but otherwise, who the fuck is anyone to tell me what to buy with my money?
If you want to boycott the game, then that's what you should do. NO ONE else has the right to tell you what to do with your money. You should tell other people to screw off when it comes to your own money
I'm not going to criticize or look down on people who boycott games, because it's not my money
On the other hand... I expect people to not be hypocrites. So no one else should criticize someone for choosing to buy that game either. If it's not your (general "you") money, then mind your own fucking business.
I'm going to buy what I want, and I don't give one rat's ass what anyone else thinks. Unless they're going to pay for it, then I will respect it out of appreciation. but otherwise, who the fuck is anyone to tell me what to buy with my money?
This is something that I seem to encounter constantly, which is kinda funny since it is obviously very illogical ("feels over reals") and blatantly wrong. I have an absolute right to tell you what to do with "your" money, just as you have an absolute right to tell me to f off for doing do.
I was not calling you out specifically at all. I was being dead serious when I said you should boycott the game if that's what you want to do. Doesn't bother me at all, because like I said it's not my money
My reply was more to ERA in general about the overall topic of people who boycott vs people who are not into boycotting
Yes, that's another way to think of it
Technically someone can speak words to criticize another person's purchasing decisions and use of their money. But don't be surprised if that other person tells you to fuck off, because it's their money
Tbf I think that getting triggered over stuff like that is a pretty bad look (I call it the libertarian baby syndrome, since that is the context in which I mostly encounter this reaction.) But yeah, it is what it is. I still think you should either engage with the argument or just look away. Dont just brush away the argument with the good old "dont tell me what to do, DAD!"
Ooooh, thats pretty cool. Poland probably isnt very transfriendly so that could make a real difference to someone's life.
Last edited:
My current intention is to donate an equal amount to however much I spend buying the game to a trans charity in Poland (someone on here helped me find one a while ago.) I feel like this is the best course of action for me in this case as I do not see it as a case of the art reflecting the positions that the employee[s?] behind those posts tipped their hat to. Of course, we will see in the end.
Ah ok, I wasn't sure how to read it at first so wanted to clarify! Which I'll do again by saying I'm not intending to make a list of names of excited people in the Cyberpunk OT before blocking them lol. This is just a discussion about feeling comfortable supporting CDP or not, and for which some of the usual tired arguments have been pulled out. I just like writing, had time and felt personally associated to the question at hand so decided to break it down a bit. If someone reading that finds some part of it informative, learns something or just understands the other position a bit better then rad. If not then whatever, I got to write for a bit and wasted some time before a meeting this morning.
haha depends how you are thinking of baby and Dad, because most likely it's the opposite as I'm over 40. (from previous demographics polls on here, I think most posters are under 30 and lots are in their early 20s)
my main engagement and message was truly to tell the OP and Kyuuji to boycott, because it's clear that's what they want to do. so I wanted to say they shouldn't listen to anyone else and go ahead to make their own decision
I only wrote the part in the end to fend off any potential replies of criticism against posters who are not into boycotting. because the general principle is the same -- choose to do what you want with your own money. I happen to be on the opposite decision in this specific case, but I do not have a problem with those who boycott. if I did I would be a huge hypocrite
hey no problem, there's nothing wrong with you choosing to boycott the game. don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise
you can save some money too lol
Oh I know, and I don't. It's just that I'd rather combat the more tired arguments where I can so people new to the discussion don't take them without pause. If you (anyone) wants to buy the game because it hasn't affected you then I'm not going to chain myself to the door to stop you, nor do I have a desire to. However there's a divide between holding that position and calling people 'fucking cowardly' for criticizing a company over their transphobic output.
I agree, I don't know what was up with the other poster who said that. Not sure why they would get so worked up over a stranger not buying a game
CDproject could kill a child and nothing will happen. I never saw so much people licking the boots of a company even in situations like that
I kinda feel like this, too.hype has dwindled pretty heavily, but I'm probably still going to play it eventually. If the game itself is passable with trans everything, then I might buy it sooner.
The people that hates CDPR over this kind of shit makes the same mistake as the people who blindly loves them. They personify the company. CDPR do something pro-consumer, people acting like they are savior of the world; one twitter guy made some bad jokes, people acting like entire company are nazis. Both are equally naive.
At the end of the day those games are made by hundreds of people who have different background, culture, personality and agendas. Some of them might be real asshole and some of them might have heart of gold. As long as they as a whole don't touch some real red line like actual nazi stuff, these noises don't matter. The product should be the only thing to be judged.
At the end of the day those games are made by hundreds of people who have different background, culture, personality and agendas. Some of them might be real asshole and some of them might have heart of gold. As long as they as a whole don't touch some real red line like actual nazi stuff, these noises don't matter. The product should be the only thing to be judged.
It's a meme who's sole purpose is to normalize anti-trans bigotry.
I'm with you op. I won't be buying any products from them or THQ Nordic ever again. Life is too short to support shitty people and there are plenty of other companies who deserve my hard earned money.
I am well aware of where this meme originated. Still, in the circumstances it's a bad joke at worst, using it to accused of a whole company to be trans-phobic is hilarious. This is like saying everyone on r/historymemes are nazis because they dare to make memes out of WW2.
It's mocking the idea of people being able to determine their gender identity, using them as the butt of the joke. If you don't find it offensive cool, but not sure how you could be confused as to how it might be taken as such. I'm not sure why you'd even find it funny, honestly.
Are you actively seeking out posts to be upset or confused over?
The onus should be on the company to make amends for their shitty actions, not the consumer. Those employees work at that company and the company has the responsibility for reassuring and compensating them. I'm not going to be quick to dismiss the wider concerns of working culture or views/training on social issues purely because other people worked on it.
That mentality would result in companies facing little to no backlash at large, considering all have employees on the ground just clocking in their nine-to-five. Which wouldn't be a driver for change, and trust me I'm the first to cast a critical eye over petulant outbursts being labelled as hepful. This isn't that though, this is a considered discussion over something hurtful put out by the company. Evaluating products in isolation is great if that's how you wish to approach this, but it's an unhealthy outlook to have in a corporate landscape when applied at any scale. Nor does that mean you swing to the other extreme of hyper-evaluating everything from every company.
The long-tired stance of "well better not buy anything then" is also just a rewritten version of the "starving children in africa" fallacy. This is something that's been cast into the public onsciousness and has hurt some people. Those people are allowed to feel that hurt, and allowed to not purchase products from the company any more. There's no further onus for them to question everything they've ever bought or plan to buy to validate that decision. I donate monthly to the NSPCC, but shouldn't I be donating it to x cause in y location that is worse. If I plan to ditch Cyberpunk do I have to look at the credits, linkedin bio's and social media accounts of every employee? No, obviously. However if, especially the mouthpiece of the company, decides to say some problematic shit I'll adjust my decisions accordingly.
- Status