Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Ideologies, morals and ethics of 99% people fall aside when you show enough money.
I think you can buy everybody today, except maybe someone with a mental illness or a fanatic of certain religions.
It's liberating and empowering when you realize it: you don't live in a democracy or any other system.
You live in capitalism and everybody could be made to dance to the fine tune of your dolla bills.
Ideologies, morals and ethics of 99% people fall aside when you show enough money.
I think you can buy everybody today, except maybe someone with a mental illness or a fanatic of certain religions.
It's liberating and empowering when you realize it: you don't live in a democracy or any other system.
You live in capitalism and everybody could be made to dance to the fine tune of your dolla bills.
Yes this is so much different than the past. I am sure people couldn't buy indulgences from the church in medieval times. People who think such things have anything to do with "capitalism" are hilarious, but that goes with the modern brainwashing. Down the memory hole it is.
Yes this is so much different than the past. I am sure people couldn't buy indulgences from the church in medieval times. People who think such things have anything to do with "capitalism" are hilarious, but that goes with the modern brainwashing. Down the memory hole it is.
I didn't live in medieval times so I can't say from experience what they did back then.
It's always good to remind ourselves that history is written by winners.
Maybe there were different people back then who weren't impressed by the money system but somebody with lots of money decided they should go.
I'm just saying we should stop pretending today that we live in any sort of other society or system.
Almost everybody dances to the sweet sound of money music as you already know.
Ideologies, morals and ethics of 99% people fall aside when you show enough money.
I think you can buy everybody today, except maybe someone with a mental illness or a fanatic of certain religions.
It's liberating and empowering when you realize it: you don't live in a democracy or any other system.
You live in capitalism and everybody could be made to dance to the fine tune of your dolla bills.
Yes this is so much different than the past. I am sure people couldn't buy indulgences from the church in medieval times. People who think such things have anything to do with "capitalism" are hilarious, but that goes with the modern brainwashing. Down the memory hole it is.
Ideologies, morals and ethics of 99% people fall aside when you show enough money.
I think you can buy everybody today, except maybe someone with a mental illness or a fanatic of certain religions.
It's liberating and empowering when you realize it: you don't live in a democracy or any other system.
You live in capitalism and everybody could be made to dance to the fine tune of your dolla bills.
Yes this is so much different than the past. I am sure people couldn't buy indulgences from the church in medieval times. People who think such things have anything to do with "capitalism" are hilarious, but that goes with the modern brainwashing. Down the memory hole it is.
Ideologies, morals and ethics of 99% people fall aside when you show enough money.
I think you can buy everybody today, except maybe someone with a mental illness or a fanatic of certain religions.
It's liberating and empowering when you realize it: you don't live in a democracy or any other system.
You live in capitalism and everybody could be made to dance to the fine tune of your dolla bills.
Yes this is so much different than the past. I am sure people couldn't buy indulgences from the church in medieval times. People who think such things have anything to do with "capitalism" are hilarious, but that goes with the modern brainwashing. Down the memory hole it is.
Ideologies, morals and ethics of 99% people fall aside when you show enough money.
I think you can buy everybody today, except maybe someone with a mental illness or a fanatic of certain religions.
It's liberating and empowering when you realize it: you don't live in a democracy or any other system.
You live in capitalism and everybody could be made to dance to the fine tune of your dolla bills.
Yes this is so much different than the past. I am sure people couldn't buy indulgences from the church in medieval times. People who think such things have anything to do with "capitalism" are hilarious, but that goes with the modern brainwashing. Down the memory hole it is.
Ideologies, morals and ethics of 99% people fall aside when you show enough money.
I think you can buy everybody today, except maybe someone with a mental illness or a fanatic of certain religions.
It's liberating and empowering when you realize it: you don't live in a democracy or any other system.
You live in capitalism and everybody could be made to dance to the fine tune of your dolla bills.
Yes this is so much different than the past. I am sure people couldn't buy indulgences from the church in medieval times. People who think such things have anything to do with "capitalism" are hilarious, but that goes with the modern brainwashing. Down the memory hole it is.
Lets be honest here; How much money did the Wtcher games make in Eastern Europe?
Now, how much money did the Witcher games make in countries where Sap was a non entity?
I would say most people had never heard of the witcher books before the games, unless you lived in Eastern Europe. The game sold well (where the money is) in spite of the Witcher books, not because of them. CDPR would not have piles of money right now if they relied on potato bucks as their revenue stream (and from everything I hear about Eastern Europe, your game will get pirated 90 percent of the time rather than make any potato bucks anyway). Judging from the very poorly translated versions of the novels they sent to the West after the release of the first Witcher game (hint, they are terrible), CDPR helped Sap out more than he helped them.
If the Witcher 1 had flopped, you could be sure there would not have been a renewed effort to translate the books a second or third time, so the few that actually made it outside their natural orbit would have been forgotten curiosities in a second hand book shop.
Old Sappie is really riding a nice little wave because of that Polish Law. If he really was destitute after the increased book sales from the games success, I hate to think how he would have been had they never been released.
If there were no books, there would be no games. No game developer would be able to come up with such characters, world, ideas. Without Sapkowski it would be just another generic crap with semi-nice visuals.
If there were no books, there would be no games. No game developer would be able to come up with such characters, world, ideas. Without Sapkowski it would be just another generic crap with semi-nice visuals.
Afaik Witcher books have a history of a pretty bad early English translations, with lots of funnier parts and colorful language getting lost along the way. I replayed Witcher 1 recently and with game situation is similar - I still vastly prefer writing in Russian version to English. Voice acting is so-so, but I really like Geralt's russian VA. Seems the same in Witcher 2 and I had not played the third game yet to compare.
Maybe it is not some high literature but first Witcher books, ones that consist of short stories, are a damn good read. It is the second part focused on Ciri and how the whole world is out to rape her, where saga falls apart completely. Even 15yo me found The Lady of the Lake horrifyingly boring and underwhelming in general so no wonder that CDPR wasted so much effort to retcon most of the shit from it.
Now I am mostly curious how Netfix would deal with it - will they even be able to persevere until the "official" ending, with rapid decline in quality of source material as story progress.
They burned most good material in first season. There is still enough for 1-2 seasons more like that short story beauty and the beast with a twist that they didn't use. Later it would depend on Ciri actress and could she carry same way Cavill is doing now. She was actually interesting when they let her do stuff, unfortunately most of the time she was just running and looking scared.
In the event of gross discrepancy between the remuneration of the author and the benefits of the acquirer of the author's economic rights or the licensee,
the author may request the court for a due increase of his/her remuneration.
1) According to the polish law professors this clause is unconditionally binding(*) (J. Barta, R. Markiewicz, Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (ed.) J. Barta, R. Markiewicz, Warsaw 2003, p. 364).
* This was stated by the lawyers of Sapkowski in the letter to CDPR. And i doubt that they committed a blunder in this regard or tried to intimidate a company, that could employ an army of polish lawyers.
2) The relevant discrepancy for a remuneration was as stated by Sapkowski's lawyers to the gross win amount the factor 2 towards the received license fees according to
((T.Targosz [in:] D. Flisak (ed)., Prawo autorskie i prawa pokrewne. Komentarz, Warsaw 2015, p. 685)). The discrepancy in case of Sapkowski is at least 1700 to the 16 million at a 6% license fee.
No he doesn't have to prove that his work was responsible for the success of the computer games.
It is sufficient that his work is used as the basis in the witcher games, because you can never prove that it was exactly a persons work that made the success and not others involvement.
He does. I have this straight up from the judge, who made a verdict in another case where article 44 was used:
The success of the work could be a result of the work of the author, who made a prominent work, his name or artistic position; success could also be predestined by the activity of the copyright buyer,
displayed in ability to conduct a maketing campaign nad "selling" the work. The circumstances independent from the parties of the contract, e.g. hitting the current fashion or social demand could also be of importance.
Therefore it's underlined in the doctrine that only taking all these circumstances into consideration it's possible to ascertain if the dysproportion between creator's remuneration and benefits achieved is blatant
Please link to a court case, judge and the verdict, because i cannot find a court case where this was an important subject matter. I can only react to this after i have read the entire case not just this statement.
In this statement by the judge it is implied a necessary proportionality from the creators work and / or its popularity to all activities of the licensee to evaluate the remuneration. But there is no assumption of directly proving it or by proving that the other factors played a minor role. Therefore you are just misinterpreting the statement by the judge, if you imply that Sapkowski has to prove something that cannot be proven. Further you suggest that Sapkowski not participating in the development is a big deal, but this is either covered by contract in a clause or is outside of the contract scope and therefore irrelevant for evaluation of the remuneration amount by the contract or the remuneration as a whole (contradicts 1 and 2).
And since this is also not a common practice in such a contract forms and neither is implicite asserted by the contractees, therefore it will be also discarded. Therefore it would be only a "big deal" if it would constitute a contract breach from the side of Sapkowski.
The releveant facts are according to the statment of this judge could be:
1)The marketing of the game series. (It was marketed as "The Witcher" Geralt of Riva based on the works of Sapkowski.)
2)The body of the licensed work from this author. (Here are the seven "Witcher" books from Sapkowski, which from an enought large body for CDPR as background material and it doesn't matter if they used the entire work or not.)
3)The already established popularity of Sapkowski's Witcher in the slavic space before the release of "The Witcher" cRPG, the production of the related polish series and the new Netflix "The Witcher" series.
This could be the basis for the remuneration amount (besides the gross win factor of 1700) as it encompases the reason for licensing of this artistic work by CDPRs and it's "The Witcher" subsequent success.
Besides i would like to refrain again to the Sapkowski's lawyers letter to CDPR where it is stated that it could be possible that the games series is not covered by the previous contract agreement.
If the court would rule that this agreement is not unambiguously formulated, than this would be a settled matter that would be ruled in favor of Sapkowski, since the law protects the author's copyrights. But even this was not a point of dispute of the Lawyers letter, because the contract already had irregularities as it is stated in the letter:
"in the best case, the aforementioned contracts do not conform to even rudimentary due diligence principles, and even if one were to demonstrate that the successive contracts “confirmed” the alleged transfer of copyright for all the games, the subject claim is nevertheless rooted in legal regulations, in this scope – especially in Art. 43 of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights."
Here i will state that i don't know how the DD applies to the author's rights and this both parties and how this should be done.
Using the names isn't the same as using his work (the books). And the further they go in games, the more they are doing "their own thing" that's merely inspired by Sapkowsky's universe, which makes it even harder for Sapkowsky to claim he was being responsible for the games' success or him contributing anything. We're talking about another work, really. CDPR's work. I can't stress how important this is.
It is not only about the names of characters, places and events. It is also about the description and connections between characters, places and their associations, description of events, history of the world, background informations and ect. And CDPR work is entirely a derivative of Sapkowski work (I presume this, since i have heard nothing that spoke against it.) and this is sufficient, since:
W innym miejscu Sąd Najwyższy stwierdza, że „utworem jest każde opracowanie (...), w którym przejawia się twórcza praca autora, a więc, gdy dzięki pomysłowości i indywidualnemu ujęciu dzieło uzyskało oryginalną postać”.
And since (as it currently pressents itself) Sapkowski is not bound by the contract (as there is no statement which would say otherwise) to participate in the production of this game, so you stress something that is unimportant for the remuneration, because it is about the authors rights (Prawo Autorskie) to his creation and the remuneration of the license agreement.
Btw. Sapkowski has the right to dislike the computer games medium as a storytelling device.
And him telling that he didn't played the games are having none interest of playing the games is not infringing the rights to his work and to any work that is derived from his work.
It would be marked against him in the court though. Because his total and complete lack of any involvement (to put it mildly) can't be used as an argument for him making the series successful.
Again, it's all about analysing the circumstances surrounding the case.
It could be attempted to use against him in the court though, but it does not infringe the rights to his work or any derivate from his work (license fees). And that judge will look at the CDPR lawyers and think to himself: "Do you really expect from an old man to play computer games?! Borze this is not in the contract!"
Strengthening my line of argumentation is the fact, that in similar manner CDPR has acted months before the events with Sapkowski where they revealed a extortion attempt to publish art from CDPR CP2077.
But a letter from lawyers is not an illegal extortion attempt, even if it may seem so for some personas. Therefore their acting was hasty and didn't counted into consideration the polish law.
CDPR answered even with a greater hostility than Sapkowski has acted, by the act of displaying Sapkowski as extortionist and not like a person that is entitled by the law to this cause of actions.
Sapkowski couldn't bring them before the court in Poland for reputational damage based upon the truth, but in many western countries, like in Germany he could.
They didn't "display him an an extortioninst" though, so I fail to see what "reputational damage" you're talking about. If Sapkowsky is seen as an extortionist it's because of his own actions, not CDPRs.[/spoiler]
This thread and the internet memes and this "If Sapkowsky is seen as an extortionist it's because of his own actions, not CDPRs" are the evidence for the reputational damage done.
It is not a normal cause of actions to display the lawyers exchanges to the public, especially if the other party is explicit against it in any form and for any reason. And this was not CDPR first law case, but it was the first case where they acted in this way and this fact implies intent to inflict reputional damage. The display of the lawyers exchange followed after the extortion attempts, where CDPR acted with equal means, which implies an attempted to draw association with a extrotion attempt.
Further CDPRs public statement that Sapkowski's notice are groundless after just one day of receiving the notice speaks also for this attempt, since it deviates from normal practice of evaluating such claims and prolonging of such a process till a certain ruling can be ensured.
If Sapkowski wouldn't had contracted lawyers, then he would had nothing after his mistake with "the witcher" royalties. CDPR also stated that Sapkowski had no ground for his legal claims therefore their current behavior contradicts your assumption.
I use a hyperbolic language displaying their previous and current behavior towards this settlement you make call it peculiar or whatever you want, but this is not a good standing between this parties. This is rather a cold sattlement no matter which side is on the short end of the stick than a happy ending for both and it could have been handled otherwise. CDPR are now ensured to retain the rights to games, merch and comics instead a possible revoke. So call it like you will, but be assured that they thought and informed otherwise.
I hope that Sapkowski (i side here with a person and not with a company) now has acted smarter than before and has ensured himself the royalties and made a better agreement.
1) He said that the game, and I quote; "made a lot of stink and shit". 2) That he doesn't know much about the game, because he "surrounds himself with intelligent people".
3) He also complained that he had to "fight" to "prove who was the first" [his books or the games]. 4) He has a lot of disdain for the games, because they showed him that he isn't as great author as he thought, which hurt his ego.
5) And spare me "Sapkowski is Sapkowski". Sapkowsky is an arrogant jerk. Plain and simple.
Some hear Laurel. Some hear Yanny. And some hear Covfefe.
1) Quote the entire quote, because i read it as that the games caused him a lot of trouble ("Gra narobiła mi mnóstwo smrodu i gówna"). Just found this entire quote:
"The game caused me a lot of stench and shit ... Because foreign publishers started using graphics from the game on the covers. And people rejected the book, saying it was not new, that it was game-related. In the sense of a book written for the game, which - in fantasy especially - we have a lot. I had to fight a serious war to prove who was the first."
2) The most intelligent people that i know do not play computer games, because they see it as an utter waste of time.
3) This is a legitimate complaint for an author and related to point 1). 4) Could be also understood as a praise for the games, if it has not other explainatory context. 5) Most people are arrogant jerks, but only few have the insight what they are.
Sapkowski is Sapkowski and CDPR is CDPR and there is no honor among lawyers and thiefs, because it is solely about money.
I would say most people had never heard of the witcher books before the games, unless you lived in Eastern Europe. The game sold well (where the money is) in spite of the Witcher books, not because of them.
Vehemently disagree. Making a cool setting is hard. And the witchers setting and characters are pretty great. Better than what most nerds could put together anyway.
If the Witcher 1 had flopped, you could be sure there would not have been a renewed effort to translate the books a second or third time, so the few that actually made it outside their natural orbit would have been forgotten curiosities in a second hand book shop.
Agree, but the witcher 1 didnt flop. And it was partly because of its setting. I can tell you it wasnt because of the combat system.
Old Sappie is really riding a nice little wave because of that Polish Law. If he really was destitute after the increased book sales from the games success, I hate to think how he would have been had they never been released.
Whether a person plays videogames or not has absolutely nothing to do with their intelligence. Not least because videogames vary so wildly in terms of content, difficulty, complexity, and so on. Chess is a game played by extremely intelligent people, and many videogames have at least as much complexity as chess. Obviously nobody with 150 IQ is playing Candy Crush, but the idea that nobody who's truly intelligent plays videogames is fucking absurd. Sapowski has that attitude towards games because he's a senile old fart, not because he's enlightened.
Whether a person plays videogames or not has absolutely nothing to do with their intelligence. Not least because videogames vary so wildly in terms of content, difficulty, complexity, and so on. Chess is a game played by extremely intelligent people, and many videogames have at least as much complexity as chess. Obviously nobody with 150 IQ is playing Candy Crush, but the idea that nobody who's truly intelligent plays videogames is fucking absurd. Sapowski has that attitude towards games because he's a senile old fart, not because he's enlightened.
Whether a person plays videogames or not has absolutely nothing to do with their intelligence. Not least because videogames vary so wildly in terms of content, difficulty, complexity, and so on. Chess is a game played by extremely intelligent people, and many videogames have at least as much complexity as chess. Obviously nobody with 150 IQ is playing Candy Crush, but the idea that nobody who's truly intelligent plays videogames is fucking absurd. Sapowski has that attitude towards games because he's a senile old fart, not because he's enlightened.
I think that you skipped over the information, that i tried to convey. You can either consume or invest and investment is the act of not consuming for the intention to consume more at a later time point. The most intelligent people that i know are scientist and they invest their time into their study subject not into games for everybody. Nearly all computer games, besides some computer simulations that are like games ( Universe Sandbox 2, Garry's Mod, SpaceEngine and etc ), are for everybody because they aim at a certain broad demographics.
Naturally you can be of high intelligence and play computer games, but at a certain time point you will ask yourself fundamental questions about consuming and investment of your time. And the more intelligent people will see that if they love their study subject or family than it is obvious, that it is better spend their time with their children or trying out a different test series with new parameters. Also their study subject requires so much time of them that they are not capable for anything else besides perhaps their family. But there is also a different group that will simply get bored with a game after few hours, because it is not complex enought to keep their brain entertained.
Chess is a battle of minds against eachother, where you learn many different strategies and tactics as a response to other strategies and tactics and train your brain to visualise the outcome of situtations several turns ahead. You do this even up to the point where you can play chess without a chess board.
Chess and Go are the kings of all tactical games and therefore your comparison lacks.
Sapowski has that attitude towards games because he's a senile old fart, not because he's enlightened
Whether a person plays videogames or not has absolutely nothing to do with their intelligence. Not least because videogames vary so wildly in terms of content, difficulty, complexity, and so on. Chess is a game played by extremely intelligent people, and many videogames have at least as much complexity as chess. Obviously nobody with 150 IQ is playing Candy Crush, but the idea that nobody who's truly intelligent plays videogames is fucking absurd. Sapowski has that attitude towards games because he's a senile old fart, not because he's enlightened.
A man has to build a house, plant a tree and got to have children. I learn more and more people that are searching for hobbies that produce something substantial, lasting over time and of a certain value, therefore they pick up hobbies like smithing, carpeting or repairing machines.
Manchildren just consume and retards just waste their time, because they do not understand that their time is finite.
Nobody denies that though. The question isn't if the clause is unconditionally binding or not. The question is: should Sapkowsky get his alms and if so, what amount. What the polish law professors really say over and over again is that the whole case is filled with question marks that a judge taking the case would have to explain, because there is a shortage of cases concerning Article 44. At this point it's all down to everybody's own interpretation, so having this battle in an actual court would help clear the ambiguity of the article in question.
It doesn't really matter what Sapkowsky's lawyers said in this particular point. The remuneration amount has to be "suitable", which is - again - for a judge to decide. It isn't as simple as taking market rates and it's exactly where the proving work would have to be done, and where many arguments can be found to weaken Sapkowsky's potential remuneration.
Please link to a court case, judge and the verdict, because i cannot find a court case where this was an important subject matter. I can only react to this after i have read the entire case not just this statement.
In this statement by the judge it is implied a necessary proportionality from the creators work and / or its popularity to all activities of the licensee to evaluate the remuneration. But there is no assumption of directly proving it or by proving that the other factors played a minor role. Therefore you are just misinterpreting the statement by the judge, if you imply that Sapkowski has to prove something that cannot be proven.
Further you suggest that Sapkowski not participating in the development is a big deal, but this is either covered by contract in a clause or is outside of the contract scope and therefore irrelevant for evaluation of the remuneration amount by the contract or the remuneration as a whole (contradicts 1 and 2).
CDPR could argue that it was "the activity of the copyright buyer" that made The Witcher series popular and lack of Sapkowsky's involvement helps to solidify that position. Keep in mind that it's Sapkowsky's claim that it was his contribution that made the games popular and that would have to be evaluated by the judge.
CDPR could prove how The Witcher games' popularity increased with each subsequent game - and that it was the result of their work on the games - and how they impacted the popularity of the books (both sales and translations), and caused Netflix to produce a TV series, thus showing the real relations between the games and the books, and how autor benefited from games that way.
These are the circumstances that judge would take into consideration, since they are directly tied to "the success of the work".
The releveant facts are according to the statment of this judge could be:
1)The marketing of the game series. (It was marketed as "The Witcher" Geralt of Riva based on the works of Sapkowski.)
2)The body of the licensed work from this author. (Here are the seven "Witcher" books from Sapkowski, which from an enought large body for CDPR as background material and it doesn't matter if they used the entire work or not.)
3)The already established popularity of Sapkowski's Witcher in the slavic space before the release of "The Witcher" cRPG, the production of the related polish series and the new Netflix "The Witcher" series.
This could be the basis for the remuneration amount (besides the gross win factor of 1700) as it encompases the reason for licensing of this artistic work by CDPRs and it's "The Witcher" subsequent success.
This is certainly what Sapkowsky and his lawyers would be saying, I don't disagree with you on that. However, each point could be argued too and impact the remuneration amount.
Besides i would like to refrain again to the Sapkowski's lawyers letter to CDPR where it is stated that it could be possible that the games series is not covered by the previous contract agreement.
It is not only about the names of characters, places and events. It is also about the description and connections between characters, places and their associations, description of events, history of the world, background informations and ect. And CDPR work is entirely a derivative of Sapkowski work (I presume this, since i have heard nothing that spoke against it.) and this is sufficient, since:
W innym miejscu Sąd Najwyższy stwierdza, że „utworem jest każde opracowanie (...), w którym przejawia się twórcza praca autora, a więc, gdy dzięki pomysłowości i indywidualnemu ujęciu dzieło uzyskało oryginalną postać”.
There is an interesting argument that since Sapkowsky isn't the maker of the games so Article 44 doesn't apply (because he isn't their author). But for settling that, again, we'd need a judge. I am bringing this up, because I find it to be an interesting point.
It could be attempted to use against him in the court though, but it does not infringe the rights to his work or any derivate from his work (license fees). And that judge will look at the CDPR lawyers and think to himself: "Do you really expect from an old man to play computer games?! Borze this is not in the contract!"
Well, nobody denies him rights to his work nor that he has to be paid for it. The argument is that he was paid for it (a sum that was considered even by Sapkowsky to be a fair amount at the time). It's the success of TW3 that made Sapkowsky ask for more money "because I was stupid", but the success of TW series alone isn't sufficient enough for a judge to simply handle him over the money.
Also, nobody was asking him to play computer games. He was asked to take part in creating one (based on his own work, no less), which is an entirely different thing and would make his involvement in the success of the games (and direct authorship) very easy to prove, pretty much sealing the whole thing. So by not doing this "because it wasn't in the contract" Sapkowsky shot himself in the foot. But he does that a lot.
This thread and the internet memes and this "If Sapkowsky is seen as an extortionist it's because of his own actions, not CDPRs" are the evidence for the reputational damage done.
So? Again, if "the reputational damage" was done, it was only because of Sapkowsky. He may have a legal way to get more money from CDPR, but it doesn't mean the public has to like it or that that the public wouldn't have thought the same way, should CDPR did nothing official in this matter.
1) Quote the entire quote, because i read it as that the games caused him a lot of trouble ("Gra narobiła mi mnóstwo smrodu i gówna"). Just found this entire quote:
"The game caused me a lot of stench and shit ... Because foreign publishers started using graphics from the game on the covers. And people rejected the book, saying it was not new, that it was game-related. In the sense of a book written for the game, which - in fantasy especially - we have a lot. I had to fight a serious war to prove who was the first."
On the surface it seems like a legitimate complaint against the publisher, but I wonder how true his statement is in this regard (about people rejecting the book). Sapkowsky isn't the kind of man you can simply take at his word.
You can call any hobby to be "an utter waste of time" and suggest that intelligent people don't waste time on such things. It just so happens that for some people video games are their hobby.
I fail to see your point. Knowing you're a jerk only matters when you're willing to do something about it. When you don't, it doesn't matter if you know you're a jerk or not.
