A classic tale of greed overcoming pride. Yay! o.O

I couldn't agree more. To say Sapkowski is a literary genius is seriously overselling the man. It isn't the fault of translation that there are sections in his first book where characters are talking to each other for 10, 15, 20 pages. Terribly unimpressed and in my opinion, it needed serious editing for length, plot and pacing.

If I were him, I'd shut up and take the money, but as you say, CDPR will probably send him home with a nice little package that settles the matter and keeps the old boy happy. They shouldn't because his game is morally execrable but whatever.

Again, quote from Eurogamer: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-03-24-meeting-andrzej-sapkowski-the-writer-who-created-the-witcher

"I was stupid enough to sell them rights to the whole bunch," he says. "They offered me a percentage of their profits. I said, 'No, there will be no profit at all - give me all my money right now! The whole amount.' It was stupid. I was stupid enough to leave everything in their hands because I didn't believe in their success. But who could foresee their success? I couldn't."

I wonder what "whole bunch" means?

Whole bunch as in 3 games and other Witcher games ?.

You simply do not say whole bunch if you agreed to make a single game, he's full of it.

I can say that in Russia before Witcher games he wasn't all that popular. Yes, he had some fanbase, but not very big. I know because I was a fantasy and scifi fan back then: Tolkien, Moorcock or even Howard was much more popular. Guys, Howard was so popular that locals started to publish their own fanfiction to continue Conan series! :) Did you knew that in Russia there is over 100 books in Conan series and each contains 1-3 novels? XD And not to mention Russian authors like Perumov who was also very popular, much more popular that Sapkowski.

A brief thought from an American copyright lawyer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip4iDl8aX2k

Probably all The Witcher novels he wrote at that time.

I bought the translated books (all of them) and spent more on them than on the Witcher games. it's not my fault, the book publishers pay only a small profit margin per book to the author.
I would disagree here. The copyright to the Witcher world was his and his alone once (before he sold it) and he could have sold it for any price that someone was willing to pay for any derivative work. If someone was willing to pay a hundred million for movie rights to him, I would not object. Business is business and has nothing to do with fairness.

Usually a cut of the profits plus a fixed amount is something sensible though. But even that means that derivative works (what about Witcher T-shirts, mugs, toys, ...) can be more profitable to the original creator than the original thing. Why not.

I somehow doubt that this is what a court will decide if it ever comes to a decision. CDPR had all the risk. They invested millions in the games and could as well have made a loss. They should get the major share of the profit. On the other hand, even if Sapkowski was selling the rights for a rather low price, it was his decision too. I positively support the right of people to make stupid decisions. If he was mentally fit at that time and if the legal text was clear without any loopholes and if one can assume that he was aware of the chances and risks of the project and fine with the sum, I would say that he already got what is due legally and every additional payment to him would be just pure charity. It could be a chance for him and others to learn and negotiate rights better next time.

This totally hits the nail on the head. It's great that he created such an intriguing universe which so many people have now enjoyed within any particular media, but the fact of the matter is that he negotiated the rights to CDPR fully knowing what he was doing and totally admits to that. He's ultimately bitter now that he made a bad financial decision and wishes he had better foresight initially to make a better choice, but rather than chalking one up to experiential learning is taking his bitterness to seek unreasonable legal resolve to his own poor financial decisions.

I have mixed feelings about this in that I wish an original content creator such as himself would have enough sensibility to make good financial decisions for themselves to be rewarded appropriately for their creations, but as you've said - I also support people's right and choice to make bad financial decisions for themselves too because experiential learning is such a great thing. The most successful multi-billionaires in the world out there will often cite their biggest financial blunders as being the biggest lessons in life which helped them to learn how to make better decisions in the future. For example, multi-billionaire Warren Buffett's holding company Berkshire Hathaway which is an enormous success, is named after a textile company he purchased a long time ago which was his biggest financial failure in terms of decisions. He named the company Berkshire Hathaway as a constant reminder to himself to avoid failure in the future.

It's sad that Sapkowski made poor financial decisions for himself, but even though he admits to it, his own actions are attempting to disavow personal responsibility which is somewhat shameful IMHO. Hopefully when he sold the rights to turn The Witcher into a movie and TV series, he learned from his blunder in licensing the rights for making video games, and he chose to take a percentage of profits from the movie/TV show adaptations where he can make a good chunk of coin, thus turning his previously bad decisions into good ones for current opportunities. Opportunities I might add, which probably would be much less likely had he NOT made the deal with CDPR all those years ago.

It's ok to have regrets, but one should take personal responsibility over bad decisions and learn from them and not dwell on them and cast others as the bad guys. To do so is to give up personal power and in the end lose out.

Unfortunately that's not how the world works. Being a dick is how you succeed in this world.

My POV is that he fucked up when agreeing to the contract and is now seeking a backdoor to get to at least some money. He was offered a % back then FFS. It's just greed. Even his decision back then was driven by greed because he didn't believe in it to be a success and just took the quick buck. Why should he get a refund for making a bad decision?

The only disputable thing could be what the contract covered. If it was only one game, then he might have a right for compensation for everything else besides Witcher 1. But as we can't see that original contract, we can only speculate about this.

It's true that most of the time with aproach like this companies end up with Duke Nukem Forever. But every once in a while they end up with Resident Evil 4. Just to make my point clear - I know RE4 is a very divisive game, but my point is that its critical and commercial success, as well as the influence it had on game design are a fact. Witcher series also had a rocky development - for a long time Geralt wasn't even the protagonist of the first game and there were also reports about how badly Witcher 3 development was going. The end results however turned out rather impressive.

Yea, then go make a PC game, a movie and a tv series based on the adventures of Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. Then tell the judge that you run with all the risk. Have fun with the sentence.