Could be the case - I'm not aware of how things played out in that regard. I would not be surprised by a high turnover rate based on the things I have been reading about their work conditions and managerial expectations. In which case you could say the Witcher 3 devs set up their CP2077 successors for a "well, the previous guys did it with The Witcher 3, so you guys who are obviously better will do an even better job with CP2077, right? Right???"

and all this while spending twice as much money for marketing than for development. they could have send more on development and would reach far better sales (i assume). this "more money for pr than for devs" seems to be the gold standard for aaa game development. its so sick, if i buy a game, than i actually pay for ads.

This. The only issue I experienced was the occasional graphical glitch. Was it perfect? Hell naw, but it was far more playable than a lot of more experienced AAA developers' similar products.
This is the real issue that plagues the major games industry. The monetary investments aren't why the big studios are crying about needing more money, it's that the monetary investments aren't being spent the thing that the consumer gaming public wants, ie: a good game. It's spent on advertisements, sponsorships, cinematic nonsense that I don't need or want, big names to voice characters, yada, yada. Creation, development, labor and logistically, hell, even virally marketing a game is cheaper than ever, thanks to the power of digital distribution, which eliminates physical production and the costs that come with it, and shipping it worldwide. Of course, consoles tend to be the main factor behind the reluctance to switch distribution models entirely to digital, and I get the want for super fans to have some physical goodies to go with their purchase, however, anyone still making the statement that things like MTX NEEDS to happen for devs to make their money isn't holding the people handling the purse strings accountable for bloated costs, and probably shouldn't be sharing their opinion on the subject to begin with.

What is very different for CDPR is that there are only a few major (CP2077 on different hardware) "exit points". That makes it much easier for top management to control those "exit points". And as CP2077 is a game it would have been trivial to figure out its not ready for release by simply trying to play it. So while part of the above may still make it hard to predict a timeline - none of the above should have allowed the game to "go gold" without the top management figuring out that its not golden (yet).

these companies change a lot all the time , thats why never to preorder and every game should be valued on its own
this is why I never got the fandom of old studios , just look at ID software, doom 1-2 pretty good for its time ,doom3 meh new doom very good , latest doom soso

As much as i hate to agree, given there are some games devs out there that have made some interestingly pro-consumer moves, I would have to agree. Gaming corporations are like any other corporations, or a government, etc. If your hero lives long enough, you get to see them become the villain. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is especially true of public corporations that are obligated by laws to seek maximum short term profit.

I think they could have pulled this off if they'd stayed with the Witcher 3 format. Going to 1st person and trying to rival GTA was a disastrous decision given the time constraints management imposed on itself. And to top it off they claimed they wouldn't be relying on crunch to get it done. Well, turns out crunch was totally insufficient. They completely overestimated what they were capable of, which is an appalling degree of incompetence.

I sure wish we could get political here, but I'll point you off in the right direction: corporations as we know them are anti-capitalistic entities, they are perversions of free markets created by writ of government pen with special privileges. Their "failure" as you point out is part of their design, especially if you delve into the history of the entities. One cannot support capitalism without also being anti-corporate.

Very true.

The problem is now there is a minimum investment requirement to be an entrepreneur, thanks to government regulations and the average cost of certain things. Fortunately, there is still a separation between private and public corporations, which i was educated on. That doesn't take away from the argument, but keep in mind that it's pretty easy to identify the "good guys' still.

I have no qualms about getting banned, though. Watvin, the one public facing staff member who seems to not have his head up his rear end is having difficulty asking my questions. To be fair, my questions are pointing to the absurdity of allowing political games while banning political discussion, as well as trying to define when it's no longer about the games. My last question which he answered was: His response: I noticed he answered in a way without actually creating a specific example (i figure this was specifically 'cause he knew i would post it somewhere, like here). Naturally, if we're going to establish a standard, I naturally want specifics down to the smallest nuance to know when GOG staff either fails to objectively follow the code or when they themselves actually violate it: Of course, if he says no, his example of Singularity, my guess without playing it, would be in trouble already. However if he says no, that opens an avenue of passive-aggressive attacks by using metaphores, and are more likely to be personal attacks rather than arguments and counter-arguments. I assume he figured this out and this is why he has not responeded. I want it to be clear that indeed i did put him into this rough position, but he does represent the company that ultimately made this ridiculous policy.

I mean, you asked a question and they replied? No one was seemingly put into a rough position (unless you were trying to catch them out of course) you got a reply but judging by your following comment you were never going to agree with anything else or than your own view...which begs the question why would you even ask in the first place lol.

The reason why companies go public (look for 'investors') is often that they (the former owners of said companies) want more money. Meaning they themselves are also greedy little ... , or as they got a lot more money than most investors maybe rather greedy big .... . And in CDPR case the former owners are themselves also the biggest shareholders ('investors') - unless that recently changed.

Eh. Oftentimes, and I suspect it was the case for CDPR, is the company has growth ambitions that current cash flow doesn't allow for, and "find investors" is often seen as less negative than "get loans" (assuming loans could be secured...), especially for larger growth needs.

Of course there are plenty of situations where your 'greed' notion is accurate, too... especially in the "seed funding"/"incubator" space where people just make companies with no intention of actually making them profitable on their own but only make them to be sold. This is a vast majority of the "big tech bubble" that have offerings that run in the red and have no viable business model to do otherwise. They just hope to grow a community fast enough to sell out to investors (or a purchaser) before running out of initial funds.

This second kind is especially problematic with super-low interest rates (under the guise of "government supporting the economy", but it's certainly misguided) allowing for zombie companies [I'll leave the exercise to you to search that] to keep going indefinitely with effectively no cost.

It's been a while since he responded, until today. After i posted that i went to sleep and woke up to a response. Of course I asked a followup, though.

And you're right: i'm not going to agree, because it's a fundamental difference. However, by asking and getting a response, I can hold GOG to it's own standard, which i do believe gog might've violated (numerous times) but i'm going to make sure with my latest question to him, first. GOG failing to meet it's own standards would force GOG to change policy. Like most corporations, it's trying to play things both ways. If GOG was actually making a conscious attempt not to sell overtly political games and use politics for advertising, I could at least respect GOG's stance, even if i think it's untenable.

This is disgusting, frankly. I don't think people realize what will happen if they boot current executives. CD Projekt will become like any other company in that case. Whether you liked the game or not is irrelevant, the truth remains: people like Marcin Iwinski are particularly unique individuals within this industry and are a huge part of what makes CD Projekt such a consumer-friendly company.