Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Games

Cyberpunk Maker CD Projekt Sued by Investor Over Botched Launch (bloomberg.com) 69

CD Projekt SA, the Polish video-game publisher of Cyberpunk 2077, was sued by an investor who claims the company misled him about the potential of the error-plagued game whose botched release this month caused shares to dive. From a report: Andrew Trampe sued Thursday in federal court in Los Angeles and seeks to represent other investors who bought the company's securities. CD Projekt failed to disclose that Cyberpunk 2077 was "virtually unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous number of bugs," according to the complaint. As a result, Sony Corp. removed Cyberpunk 2077 from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and the company were forced to offer full refunds for the game, according to the complaint.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cyberpunk Maker CD Projekt Sued by Investor Over Botched Launch

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    This is why you always include in your investor risk disclosures "also, our product may be crap and our customers may not be as stupid as we think."

  • I thought it was the investors, pressuring the developers to ship the game because it had been in development for so long?

  • this the same as ambulances. If you read the comments on Finviz you will see loads every time a stock dips.

    CDPR's management utterly tanked their flawless reputation and the shit show has continued, getting pulled off both Sony and MIcrosoft's walled gardens.

    I wouldn't be surprised if some of these lawsuits are from their employees who maybe got paid, partly, in stock options. If I were a CDPR share holder I'd be fucking livid with their pure shit management team.

    Disclosure: I pre-ordered and day one ref

    • I wouldn't be surprised if some of these lawsuits are from their employees who maybe got paid, partly, in stock options.

      Why be surprised when you could do some basic research and realise that employees were not only not paid in stock, but actually got the bonuses they were promised. Hell we covered the employee townhall on Slashdot, of note was that there were zero complaints about remuneration, just on the stupid idea to rush the release.

      If I were a CDPR share holder I'd be fucking livid with their pure shit management team.

      If you were a CDPR share holder you'd almost certainly be part of the problem. Investors are the number 1 reason shit like this is rushed for arbitrary deadlines like "holiday season".

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Investors are the number 1 reason shit like this is rushed for arbitrary deadlines like "holiday season".

        You think the holiday season is an arbitrary deadline? LOL, are you nuts?

        • You think the holiday season is an arbitrary deadline? LOL, are you nuts?

          Was holiday season scheduled around how long it'd take to produce CyberPunk 2077?

        • by znrt ( 2424692 )

          Investors are the number 1 reason shit like this is rushed for arbitrary deadlines like "holiday season".

          You think the holiday season is an arbitrary deadline? LOL, are you nuts?

          from the perspective of software development it is completely arbitrary, and rushing a release often means the difference between success and failure.

          now that you know you may actually understand what is being said and you're calling people nuts about. for example, as arbitrary as the deadline is, knowing that it exists should have prompted management to reduce scope and adjust the expectations. they must have known what a clusterfuck this would be and must have at least warned the investors. maybe the cour

  • Cause I guarantee that it consisted of Sony demanding that CDPR stop telling people they could get refunds and that when CDPR refused to do so their response was to pull it from the store. At which point one of the major parts of the lawsuit is nullified. The fact of the matter is that as written, any game with quest breaking bugs or significant graphical glitches is faulty, and were someone to actually sue Sony over their return policy they would win. Course, at most that would net them the cost of the gam

  • Honestly, buggy game releases are what got my to stop buying games. I had a particularly frustrating experience with a developer that I won't name. I hope all of you bullshit game developers go homeless and hungry.

    • Actual buggy games make up an incredible minority of game releases in any given year. I highly doubt it was buggy games that made you give up on gaming.

      • I dunno, I don't think I have ever seen a game without bugs. Most aren't game breaking. And even the cyberpunk bugs are not game breaking. For some reason, this game hit the fan where others did not so much. Assassin's Creed, lots of media laughter, but I don't recall lawsuits over it.

        But if a game has to be perfect for a consumer, then you want a year to buy it.

        • I dunno, I don't think I have ever seen a game without bugs. Most aren't game breaking. And even the cyberpunk bugs are not game breaking. For some reason, this game hit the fan where others did not so much

          Err I think "game breaking bugs" are very much what is being discussed here and Cyberpunk has a shitton of them. Personally I had to reload a save to continue to progress maybe 10 times through my playthrough, and that was on v1.04, the release of which fixed some 15 game breaking bugs that would prevent quests from either being started or being completed, and 2 of the bugs in the release notes were for main story quests.

          In the end I'm a completionist. I put 55 hours in to finish every sidequest. Or at leas

          • If CDPR rereleases the game for the 7th time 8 years later and it still contains bugs patched by the community 1 month after initial release then they will be giving Bethesda a run for their money.

          • Good thing the save system is extremely robust and it saves after every significant event completion in game. Not to mention a 2 button quicksave which is a first for consoles to my knowledge. A game breaking bug is not one on which loading the save from 2 minutes ago fixes the issue.

            • A game breaking bug is not one on which loading the save from 2 minutes ago fixes the issue.

              False. A game breaking bug is any bug that prevents you from finishing the game that can't be worked around by the player without leaving the game. I've had NPCs not spawn, interactions not show up, I've had a vehicle mission where the vehicle spawned clipped into the ground and unable to be entered. These are the literal definition of game breaking as if these bugs occur you cannot progress the game.

              Mind you I've also had crashes to desktops, and no amount of saving or reloading allowed me to complete the

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Actual buggy games make up an incredible minority of game releases in any given year. I highly doubt it was buggy games that made you give up on gaming.

        Indeed. Sure, there are disappointments, but there is the opposite as well. And some of the disappointments manage to turn things round if you have a bit of patience.

        But the OP never said he gave up gaming. He may just pirate games now, making the situation worse. He also has all the signs of an entitled asshole that blames everybody else for his own bad decisions.

        • I have not purchased, or 'pirated' a game since 2005. I guess that is not entirely correct as there have been less than 5 games on my mobile that I've paid $1 for to turn off ads. So we could call it $5 spent on games since 2005, none 'stolen' or 'pirated'. As I mentioned in a follow-up somewhere in this thread, the developer pointed me to the EULA that says that game does not have to work and kept my money while their game would not run. Now somehow you've decided that makes me an entitled asshole, try a

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            That is not what makes you sound like an entitled asshole....

            • Entitled to a working game when I pay for it? Yep, I sure am. Just as my employer is entitled to expect me to do something useful. If I don't do something useful I get fired. See how that works?

    • You got rid of a hobby because of your own impulse buying ? Why not just read reviews or exercise some patience.
      • I gave up because game developers have no integrity. Its the only software where we tolerate so much slop, I guess its 'just a game', right?

        Why shouldn't we demand the same quality in game releases that we expect from any other software? I don't understand why games seem to get a free pass on quality.

        In the experience that I mentioned I spent more time troubleshooting my hardware, providing debug traces, trying things on my end, than I did being able to play the game. After 3 months they released a patch

        • You seem to operate under the misconception that we get "quality" from non-game software...
          • How many pieces of commercial software, non-game software, have you purchased that did not run out of the box? Why do games get a free pass when they do not work out of the box?

            • On the enterprise side, I've returned software to Oracle, Symantec - lawyers had to get involved.  Also, "work out of the box" doesn't mean "work well out of the box".  There's been a lot of crap that struggled, had shit performance, had UI issues, workflow issues, and so on, which sounds like what's going on with the game here... you *could* play it, it's just shit to play...
              • It was like a demo, I could play to a certain point in the game when it would reliably BSOD. I didn't pay for less than the first level. And yes, Symantec is another one on my list - I won't buy their worthless crap either.

  • by peppepz ( 1311345 ) on Friday December 25, 2020 @09:57AM (#60865074)
    Far from me the intention of defending a company with the habit of exploiting its employees, but... the possibility of an investment failing is what is called entrepreneurial risk. There's no such thing as free money.
    • Two wrongs don't make a right. If you invest in a games maker and don't expect delays and a crappy initial release (maybe fixed with DLC), then you certainly don't deserve to be wealthy. Unless there are some real contract violations not mentioned in the summary, then any judge is going to dismiss this with prejudice.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I haven't heard a single gripe from anybody I know that has and plays Cyberpunk 2077, they all love it.

    Is all the bad press, literally, just from the bad press (a few reviewers) causing knee-jerk reactions from Sony and the like?

    • by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Friday December 25, 2020 @11:35AM (#60865248)

      Combination of increased victim/outrage culture and Sony getting upset by having to do refunds (which isn't to say getting a refund isn't justified, just that the song and dance around it keeps getting grander).

      There's only a few showstopper bugs, such as compulsive hoarders crashing their save, it's a lot like Assassin's Creed Unity ... but Ubisoft didn't tell people to get refunds.

    • I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people who complain like this aren't YouTube/Instagram/Whatever-Flavor-Of-The-Month people who have monetized accounts. They need the game to work day one so they can put on their show, have viewers bow down before their gaming prowess, and give them money.

      Which they'll then spend on a $500 anime statue they insist on placing on the shelf directly to their left as if to gloat they got theirs while I'm still waiting even though I preordered day one and still... ...W

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday December 25, 2020 @10:39AM (#60865134)

    I mean the game has plenty of potential if the bugs were under control.

  • by ytene ( 4376651 ) on Friday December 25, 2020 @11:57AM (#60865294)
    You can find a complete copy of Andrew Trampe's court-submitted complaint here [courthousenews.com].

    In it, one of the things that you will find is the following statement:-

    "6. Plaintiff, as set forth in the accompanying Certification, purchased the Company’s securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure."

    What this means is that Andrew Trampe claims that he purchased shares in the parent company in the period of time between CD Projekt making what Trampe alleges is a false or misleading statement and the time when CD Projekt admitted that earlier statements they made were incorrect.

    To support his case, Trampe also includes a number of public statements from CD Projekt in which they discuss the state of the game's development and/or "release readiness". Trampe argues that because CD Projekt claimed the game was ready for release and wasn't, he has a case. It's worth noting, however, that ALL of these quotes are taken from statements reported to the press: not one of them appears to come from a 10-Q or the equivalent of a 10-Q from the Polish national stock exchange. If Mr Trampe was diligent in his investor research, surely he would have looked there?

    Here [cyberpunk.net] is a copy of the CD Projekt License agreement for CyberPunk 2077. The relevant part of that user agreement reads as follows:-

    "12.1 Our Disclaimers. Your use of Cyberpunk 2077 is at your own risk. Except as we have set out elsewhere in this Agreement, CD PROJEKT RED and its affiliates, partners and licensors disclaim any implied or express warranties or representations regarding Cyberpunk 2077. Cyberpunk 2077 is provided to you on an "as is", “as available” basis without warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied, and we are not liable for any loss, damage or harm of any kind arising from your use of or inability to use Cyberpunk 2077. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, we disclaim all warranties, express or implied, which might apply to Cyberpunk 2077, including: implied warranties of title, non-infringement, merchantability, satisfactory quality, fitness for a particular purpose, any warranties that may arise from course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade, freedom from viruses or errors or defects, and/or any warranties as to the accuracy, legality, reliability or quality of any content or information contained within Cyberpunk 2077. We do not warrant that Cyberpunk 2077 will be uninterrupted or error-free, that defects will be corrected, or that the game will be free of viruses or other harmful components."

    This is all pretty much boiler plate software warranty disclaimer language: there is nothing in here that will come as a surprise to anyone who has glanced at an EULA before. Of course, an EULA is not the same as a 10-Q.

    I had a look on the SEC web site [sec.gov] to see if there was a 10-Q on file but could not find one. They do have an F-6EF listed... This is a form which allows a foreign-registered company to trade shares on a US-based exchange as if it were a domestic US company. However, it isn't at all clear to me whether the US actually has standing to hear a case concerning a non-US company in these circumstances. This does not mean that Mr Trampe doesn't have standing, just that he might have to retain counsel in Warsaw and sue CD Projekt in Poland if he has a grievance.

    Having said that, his preliminary filing still looks mighty suspicious to me. If Mr Trampe were a sophisticated and long-term investor [as opposed, say, to an "ambulance-chasing opportunist"] then his initial filing would contain details showing that he was a long-term investor with this company. Instead, the careful way that h
    • The 10-Q filing may be relevant, but the EULA most definitely isn't. You can't sink a company in bad press and defend yourself again investors by saying "but I told my customers I am not standing by my product". Hell if that were an official statement and not buried in a EULA that would be grounds for the investors to sue, not against.

      Mind you the company investor relationship is not limited to official filings. Official filings are little more than grounds to bring criminal complaints against a company, no

  • and I don't mean CDPR. Not sure about this one but one of the companies trying to bring a lawsuit makes it's money by shorting company's stock and then suing them when the price drops. e.g. they manipulate the market to make the stock price drop and swoop in to drain more money from the company.

    We ought to ban any form of investment that doesn't directly result in a product or being made or service provided. As it stands we're letting these ghouls skim 20-30% off the economy, meaning we all have to wor
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      We ought to ban any form of investment that doesn't directly result in a product or being made or service provided. As it stands we're letting these ghouls skim 20-30% off the economy, meaning we all have to work harder for that 20-30%.

      Indeed. But a lot of people made a lot of money using this utterly immoral business model and they have bought a lot of politicians for what are peanuts compared to their profits.

  • is better anyway.
  • The potential was and is there. The launch was botched though. They should have given it another year, fixed all the problems and expanded the main story by 50...100%. Then this thing would be pure gold. Oh, and they should never have used "crunch". It makes your team _less_ productive after a few weeks.

  • You will never get back the games momentum just because they rushed it to market. Think about all the coding and graphics work wasted because they couldn't bothering waiting and testing more.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • It sounds like somebody didn't do his due diligence.
  • If becoming THE Fastest-Selling PC Game Of All Time

    https://www.vg247.com/2020/12/... [vg247.com]

    https://www.vg247.com/2020/12/... [vg247.com]

    With 4.72 million copies on day one, 13 million copies in 10 days, is a Botched Launch then I want to see their definition of a successful one.

  • I don't understand how an investor can sue their own investment on bad performance.

    I thought that the normal procedure is you invest in a company that you think will get you a good return. If the company does well, you get profit. If the company has a bad year (or royally fucks up with something), your investment loses money. That's it. Too bad, so sad.

    How can an investor sue the company that they invested in for losing money? The company doesn't have the money because they lost it.

    If your suit was successf

What hath Bob wrought?

Working...