Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Sapkowski demands CDPR pay him more

Preben

Arcane
Patron
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
3,821
Location
Failsaw, Failand
Jesus Christ, are people seriously whining that law protects the rights of small time creators against a multi-billion corporation?

I can only imagine the epic butthurt if it wasn't the beloved CDPR but EA or Ubisoft buying rights to some obscure books for couple hundred bucks and going on to make billions while the creator doesn't get shit.
If the small time creator took the money and ran, laughing in the face of EA at buying a dud, hell yes! Sapkowski was given the option but he chose not to take it. It is all on him. Who is on the other side of the table doesn't matter, EA or Disney or CDPR.

And? The law is designed to protect the weaker party of the bargain. In this case - the author of the original work whose IP's worth increased, because he would otherwise no longer profit from their own creations. This is how legal systems work in continental Europe. They protect the weak.

Your initial point was ridiculous btw. You questioned the general rule of law because you dislike what is written in a statutory law.
 

Cael

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,833
Jesus Christ, are people seriously whining that law protects the rights of small time creators against a multi-billion corporation?

I can only imagine the epic butthurt if it wasn't the beloved CDPR but EA or Ubisoft buying rights to some obscure books for couple hundred bucks and going on to make billions while the creator doesn't get shit.
If the small time creator took the money and ran, laughing in the face of EA at buying a dud, hell yes! Sapkowski was given the option but he chose not to take it. It is all on him. Who is on the other side of the table doesn't matter, EA or Disney or CDPR.

And? The law is designed to protect the weaker party of the bargain. In this case - the author of the original work whose IP's worth increased, because he would otherwise no longer profit from their own creations. This is how legal systems work in continental Europe. They protect the weak.

Your initial point was ridiculous btw. You questioned the general rule of law because you dislike what is written in a statutory law.
A contract is a contract. If a contract can be declared null and void because one party did better than the other expected, then it is worthless in the first place.

Sapkowski could have taken the option of less initial pay but a portion of the proceeds but he laughed at CDPR in the face when that was suggested. That showed that he thought he got one over them. When it backfired on him, he whined like a bitch instead of taking his lumps like a man.
 

Preben

Arcane
Patron
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
3,821
Location
Failsaw, Failand
Jesus Christ, are people seriously whining that law protects the rights of small time creators against a multi-billion corporation?

I can only imagine the epic butthurt if it wasn't the beloved CDPR but EA or Ubisoft buying rights to some obscure books for couple hundred bucks and going on to make billions while the creator doesn't get shit.
If the small time creator took the money and ran, laughing in the face of EA at buying a dud, hell yes! Sapkowski was given the option but he chose not to take it. It is all on him. Who is on the other side of the table doesn't matter, EA or Disney or CDPR.

And? The law is designed to protect the weaker party of the bargain. In this case - the author of the original work whose IP's worth increased, because he would otherwise no longer profit from their own creations. This is how legal systems work in continental Europe. They protect the weak.

Your initial point was ridiculous btw. You questioned the general rule of law because you dislike what is written in a statutory law.
A contract is a contract. If a contract can be declared null and void because one party did better than the other expected, then it is worthless in the first place.

Sapkowski could have taken the option of less initial pay but a portion of the proceeds but he laughed at CDPR in the face when that was suggested. That showed that he thought he got one over them. When it backfired on him, he whined like a bitch instead of taking his lumps like a man.

It can't be nullified at whim. The matter must be taken into a court which can in some specific instances amend or even nullify a contract. This can happen in cases specified by law, such as contract being exploitative in nature or as in the case of IP which value has increased significantly. In reality it does happen very rarely, but it's a way for the law to intervene in the protection of a weaker party.

As to whether Sapkowski is acting like a man, that's completely different matter. Though if the rumors that persist in the Polish Internet are true, then everyone would act the same if they were him.
 

S.torch

Arbiter
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
955
I can only imagine the epic butthurt if it wasn't the beloved CDPR but EA or Ubisoft buying rights to some obscure books for couple hundred bucks and going on to make billions while the creator doesn't get shit.

The small diferrence is that EA and Ubisoft don't make improvements to the worlds they take like CDPR, they take interesting ideas and do it worse, and also put microtransactions on it. The comparison is hilarious because right now CDPR have not put microtransactions or lootboxes inside none of their games, while EA and Ubisoft do it.

Thats why people take their side in this conflict.
 

Cael

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,833
Jesus Christ, are people seriously whining that law protects the rights of small time creators against a multi-billion corporation?

I can only imagine the epic butthurt if it wasn't the beloved CDPR but EA or Ubisoft buying rights to some obscure books for couple hundred bucks and going on to make billions while the creator doesn't get shit.
If the small time creator took the money and ran, laughing in the face of EA at buying a dud, hell yes! Sapkowski was given the option but he chose not to take it. It is all on him. Who is on the other side of the table doesn't matter, EA or Disney or CDPR.

And? The law is designed to protect the weaker party of the bargain. In this case - the author of the original work whose IP's worth increased, because he would otherwise no longer profit from their own creations. This is how legal systems work in continental Europe. They protect the weak.

Your initial point was ridiculous btw. You questioned the general rule of law because you dislike what is written in a statutory law.
A contract is a contract. If a contract can be declared null and void because one party did better than the other expected, then it is worthless in the first place.

Sapkowski could have taken the option of less initial pay but a portion of the proceeds but he laughed at CDPR in the face when that was suggested. That showed that he thought he got one over them. When it backfired on him, he whined like a bitch instead of taking his lumps like a man.

It can't be nullified at whim. The matter must be taken into a court which can in some specific instances amend or even nullify a contract. This can happen in cases specified by law, such as contract being exploitative in nature or as in the case of IP which value has increased significantly. In reality it does happen very rarely, but it's a way for the law to intervene in the protection of a weaker party.

As to whether Sapkowski is acting like a man, that's completely different matter. Though if the rumors that persist in the Polish Internet are true, then everyone would act the same if they were him.
So, you are telling me the Poles are a bunch of bitches? Good to know ;)
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,246
Jesus Christ, are people seriously whining that law protects the rights of small time creators against a multi-billion corporation?

I can only imagine the epic butthurt if it wasn't the beloved CDPR but EA or Ubisoft buying rights to some obscure books for couple hundred bucks and going on to make billions while the creator doesn't get shit.
If the small time creator took the money and ran, laughing in the face of EA at buying a dud, hell yes! Sapkowski was given the option but he chose not to take it. It is all on him. Who is on the other side of the table doesn't matter, EA or Disney or CDPR.

And? The law is designed to protect the weaker party of the bargain. In this case - the author of the original work whose IP's worth increased, because he would otherwise no longer profit from their own creations. This is how legal systems work in continental Europe. They protect the weak.

Your initial point was ridiculous btw. You questioned the general rule of law because you dislike what is written in a statutory law.
A contract is a contract.

Sapkowski could have taken the option of less initial pay but a portion of the proceeds but he laughed at CDPR in the face when that was suggested. That showed that he thought he got one over them. When it backfired on him, he whined like a bitch instead of taking his lumps like a man.

Both parties signing any contract are aware of the regulations involved. If CDPR didn't feel the extra protections for creator are fair, they could have taken an option of not buying the rights at all. They made a decision to sign the contract knowing they may be liable to pay up later and they're facing the consequences of that decision. Quit trying to make legal arguments because you don't know a first thing about anything.


The small diferrence is that EA and Ubisoft don't make improvements to the worlds they take like CDPR, they take interesting ideas and do it worse, and also put microtransactions on it. The comparison is hilarious because right now CDPR have not put microtransactions or lootboxes inside none of their games, while EA and Ubisoft do it.

Thats why people take their side in this conflict.

What on earth does that have to do with anything. It's not relevant if the game was fun, it's not relevant if CDPR are good bros, there's no debate to be had about any of this stuff. If the law says they have to pay up, they have to pay up and opinions of butthurt gamers on the internet doesn't matter.
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,246
If the law says they have to pay up, they have to pay up and opinions of butthurt gamers on the internet doesn't matter.

People were not arguing if this was legal or not, they were arguing if this was right or wrong.

There's no debate to be had about that either. Games sold over 30 million units, Sapkowski got paid $2000. We may not be able to calculate how much value books contributed to success of the games, they sure as fuck contributed more than two grand.
 

Valky

Arcane
Manlet
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
2,418
Location
Trapped in a bioform
Dude paid for a lottery ticket and got $1000 instead of the jackpot so he wants a refund on the ticket. Nothing but a whiny bitch who made a choice and wants the law to save him from dealing with consequences he doesn't like. Sure, I would be kicking myself too if I was in his shoes and realized what I could have gotten in royalties. But I made a decision and that's life. Trying to do a takeback is just being disingenuous and untrustworthy around contracts, and shows others that business with him should be avoided in the future.
 

Yosharian

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
9,658
Location
Grand Chien
If the law says they have to pay up, they have to pay up and opinions of butthurt gamers on the internet doesn't matter.

People were not arguing if this was legal or not, they were arguing if this was right or wrong.

There's no debate to be had about that either. Games sold over 30 million units, Sapkowski got paid $2000. We may not be able to calculate how much value books contributed to success of the games, they sure as fuck contributed more than two grand.
He agreed to hand over the rights in exchange for two thousand dollars. Why is that 'wrong', just because CDPR hit the jackpot? People handing over intellectual property rights can just charge whatever they like because if the spin-off is successful they can just sue for a percentage anyway? This is an ass-backwards argument and makes no sense, legally or morally.
 

Yosharian

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
9,658
Location
Grand Chien
What on earth does that have to do with anything. It's not relevant if the game was fun, it's not relevant if CDPR are good bros, there's no debate to be had about any of this stuff. If the law says they have to pay up, they have to pay up and opinions of butthurt gamers on the internet doesn't matter.
It's extremely relevant when you yourself are trying to paint CDPR as an evil mega-corporation. Which conveniently ignores the fact that they were an extremely small company when they bought the Witcher rights, not a huge developer or publisher.

Through their own hard work and dedication they became successful and now Sapkowski gets free money off their success, without any of the risk that a percentage deal might have entailed if he'd taken it back then. I spit on a person like that. They deserve nothing.
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,246
He agreed to hand over the rights in exchange for two thousand dollars. Why is that 'wrong', just because CDPR hit the jackpot?

Why is it wrong for him to ask for money he is legally owed? Because CDP gave you free beard DLC? :lol:

Through their own hard work and dedication they became successful

They became successful through hard work on Sapkowsk's property created through his hard work. Makes you wonder, why did they even bother buying rights to Witcher? Nigga why go through all the trouble dealing with that prick, just make your own IP through hard work and dedication, amirite?

Oh right, no one would give a slightest amount of fuck if it wasn't a locally popular IP and their business would never get off the ground.

ass-backwards argument and makes no sense, legally

Law makes no sense legally.

This is peak logical reasoning, people.
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,913
Wasn't a bad bet TBH, sometimes you lose good bets. The Witcher toiled as what was effectively a shitty NWN vaporware mod for years.
I agree, but then nobody should be surprised why there are so many people who aren't on Sapkowsky's side in this conflict.

[...] If the law says they have to pay up, they have to pay up and opinions of butthurt gamers on the internet doesn't matter.
Does it say that though?

You're forgetting about ratio legis (reason for the law) as well as pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be honored). The whole situation is far less clear than you make it seem so. Sapkowsky could try and make his claim before the court, but the CDPR also had arguments speaking in their favor, which is why Sapkowsky is going to take a deal with CDPR and get a few millions out of it, instead of trying to battle for the whole sum.
 

Cael

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,833
Dude paid for a lottery ticket and got $1000 instead of the jackpot so he wants a refund on the ticket. Nothing but a whiny bitch who made a choice and wants the law to save him from dealing with consequences he doesn't like. Sure, I would be kicking myself too if I was in his shoes and realized what I could have gotten in royalties. But I made a decision and that's life. Trying to do a takeback is just being disingenuous and untrustworthy around contracts, and shows others that business with him should be avoided in the future.
What is interesting is that little dick there was going apeshit at MCA and has the dubious honour of being the one guy MCA put on Ignore (later reversed). He seems to have a pattern of attacking game devs, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
 

Cael

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,833
You're forgetting about ratio legis (reason for the law) as well as pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be honored). The whole situation is far less clear than you make it seem so. Sapkowsky could try and make his claim before the court, but the CDPR also had arguments speaking in their favor, which is why Sapkowsky is going to take a deal with CDPR and get a few millions out of it, instead of trying to battle for the whole sum.
Sapkowsky knows what sort of a hack he is and this is his last chance at getting a pile. There will be no other such opportunities coming for him. The Witcher was an unexpected megahit for all parties. Thus, he is not interested in future contracts or the like because he knows he isn't going to get it. And he will gouge CDPR for as much as he can as fast as he can while things are still hot and interest holds.
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,246
You're forgetting about ratio legis (reason for the law) as well as pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be honored). The whole situation is far less clear than you make it seem so. Sapkowsky could try and make his claim before the court, but the CDPR also had arguments speaking in their favor, which is why Sapkowsky is going to take a deal with CDPR and get a few millions out of it, instead of trying to battle for the whole sum.

Far as I heard he has a perfectly legitimate case, in all likelihood they choose to settle because no one wants a landmark precedent that could impact the copyright market. And you never battle for the whole sum anyway, start with ridiculous demand so you have something to haggle down from. Even Stephen King doesn't get paid 16 million for his IPs.
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,913
Sapkowsky knows what sort of a hack he is and this is his last chance at getting a pile. There will be no other such opportunities coming for him. The Witcher was an unexpected megahit for all parties. Thus, he is not interested in future contracts or the like because he knows he isn't going to get it. And he will gouge CDPR for as much as he can as fast as he can while things are still hot and interest holds.
Pretty much. It's a money grab and he has nothing to lose in the attempt.

Far as I heard he has a perfectly legitimate case, in all likelihood they choose to settle because no one wants a landmark precedent that could impact the copyright market. And you never battle for the whole sum anyway, start with ridiculous demand so you have something to haggle down from. Even Stephen King doesn't get paid 16 million for his IPs.
Sure, he has enough to make it worth a shot. Whatever the outcome is going to be, it's still a lot better than nothing.
 

Yosharian

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
9,658
Location
Grand Chien
He agreed to hand over the rights in exchange for two thousand dollars. Why is that 'wrong', just because CDPR hit the jackpot?

Why is it wrong for him to ask for money he is legally owed? Because CDP gave you free beard DLC? :lol:

Through their own hard work and dedication they became successful

They became successful through hard work on Sapkowsk's property created through his hard work. Makes you wonder, why did they even bother buying rights to Witcher? Nigga why go through all the trouble dealing with that prick, just make your own IP through hard work and dedication, amirite?

Oh right, no one would give a slightest amount of fuck if it wasn't a locally popular IP and their business would never get off the ground.

ass-backwards argument and makes no sense, legally

Law makes no sense legally.

This is peak logical reasoning, people.
He is not legally or morally owed anything, he agreed to give up the rights for the two thousand. I never mentioned beard DLC - YOU are the one who attempted to paint CDPR as a mega-corporation, as the Goliath to Sapkowski's David.
 

Atchodas

Augur
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
1,047
They paid him Millions to avoid the backlash they would get for not paying him. Meanwhile legaly they owed him nothing and could not paid anything it would have reflected badly on a company. Anyway Sapkowski is a retard for taking only 2k USD he should took the dollars and the percentage of future profits what a retard lol CDPR would have definitely agreed to give him 2k + small percentage of future profits but he was too shortsighted and too stupid to ask ... once again ... what a fucking retard :D
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,913
They settled and paid him millions, because they knew that legally he wasn't owed anything.

This is definitely a thing that happens.

They settled because they would lose in a court of law.
They settled, because it's ultimately better for them that way.

If they don't settle, they'll enter into a long fight they don't want to be in for PR reasons alone, and the judge MAY still decide that Sapkowsky should get some allowance.

If they settle now - and for a sum of their choosing - they avoid the whole years-long struggle in the court, they get to shut up Sapkowsky and any of his further claims on the subject and will be seen as "the good guys from CDPR who gave Sapkowsky the money he didn't really deserve" in the eyes of the public opinion, which matters to them more than a few millions they're going to pay.
 

Gerrard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
12,191
I had no idea we had so many r/witcher posters in here.

What on earth does that have to do with anything. It's not relevant if the game was fun, it's not relevant if CDPR are good bros, there's no debate to be had about any of this stuff. If the law says they have to pay up, they have to pay up and opinions of butthurt gamers on the internet doesn't matter.
It's extremely relevant when you yourself are trying to paint CDPR as an evil mega-corporation. Which conveniently ignores the fact that they were an extremely small company when they bought the Witcher rights, not a huge developer or publisher.
They were the biggest video game publisher in the country you dumb fuck.
 

Preben

Arcane
Patron
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
3,821
Location
Failsaw, Failand
They settled and paid him millions, because they knew that legally he wasn't owed anything.

This is definitely a thing that happens.

They settled because they would lose in a court of law.
They settled, because it's ultimately better for them that way.

If they don't settle, they'll enter into a long fight they don't want to be in for PR reasons alone, and the judge MAY still decide that Sapkowsky should get some allowance.

If they settle now - and for a sum of their choosing - they avoid the whole years-long struggle in the court, they get to shut up Sapkowsky and any of his further claims on the subject and will be seen as "the good guys from CDPR who gave Sapkowsky the money he didn't really deserve" in the eyes of the public opinion, which matters to them more than a few millions they're going to pay.

They settled because any sane risk assessment would say that they were going to lose a court case with much bigger monetary loses and damages to their image. No company, especially publicly traded company, throws money out of goodwill. There are laws that protect shareholders' interest. In Poland a CEO can even go to jail if they willingly damages company.

What matters is that CDPR hit a jackpot and this happened on top of Sapkowski's creative work in worldbuilding, character creation and finally his own brand recognition. Especially the latter cannot be discarded, because the Witcher name generated much sales in the broader Central and Eastern Europe region when the first game was released. This mean that Sapkowski's contribution to the overall success was much greater than the $2000 he was paid, even if that was the amount he himself initially demanded. He is therefore in full rights to demand that his remuneration must be increased.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom