Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Jun 2017 22:33 UTC
Legal

CD Projekt Red, the company behind the popular Witcher series of videogames, put out a statement earlier today that individuals have stolen internal documents, and threaten to release them online if ransom isn't paid.

A demand for ransom has been made, saying that should we not comply, the files will be released to the general public. We will not be giving in to the demands of the individual or individuals that have contacted us, which might eventually lead to the files being published online. The appropriate legal authorities will be informed about the situation.

I haven't before seen a company being this open about something like this. It seems like a good strategy - with this statement, they're basically preemptively making the documents rather valueless. Pretty much the entire gaming community has very warm feelings towards CDPR - and rightfully so - so the individuals in question are left with empty hands here.

Clever.

Order by: Score:
Clever or deceptive?
by kjhank on Thu 8th Jun 2017 23:06 UTC
kjhank
Member since:
2013-11-19

It it just me or does this sound like a start of the game's promotional campaign? With it being about cyberpunk and whatnot.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Clever or deceptive?
by Alfman on Thu 8th Jun 2017 23:48 UTC in reply to "Clever or deceptive?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kjhank,

It it just me or does this sound like a start of the game's promotional campaign? With it being about cyberpunk and whatnot.


That would be truly devious, and yet plausible...Impressive if the writers manged to make the story cross over into reality!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Clever or deceptive?
by leech on Sat 10th Jun 2017 02:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Clever or deceptive?"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Reminds me of what happened with Steve Jackson Games, when they were working on GURPS Cyberpunk, their offices were raided by the Secret Service. Apparently they thought the work was on a hacking guidebook, rather than a role-playing supplement.

Reply Score: 2

Valueless?
by Alfman on Thu 8th Jun 2017 23:45 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Thom Holwerda,

I haven't before seen a company being this open about something like this. It seems like a good strategy - with this statement, they're basically preemptively making the documents rather valueless.


I'm confused, why does this statement make the documents valueless?

Pretty much the entire gaming community has very warm feelings towards CDPR - and rightfully so - so the individuals in question are left with empty hands here.

Clever.


How is this any different from any other ransom case where the victim decides not to pay? I'm glad they're not paying, but I don't see how putting out a statement mitigates the potential damage?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Valueless?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 9th Jun 2017 11:01 UTC in reply to "Valueless?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm confused, why does this statement make the documents valueless?


The thieves think they have documents of value CDPR would be willing to pay for, because the public would be interested in these documents. With this public statement, in which CDPR state to the public that the documents are old and not at all interesting, they take away that perceived value.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Valueless?
by CATs on Fri 9th Jun 2017 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Valueless?"
CATs Member since:
2017-06-09

This reasoning makes no sense.
First, CDPR's claim that documents are irrelevant and not interesting could as well be bluff.
Second, if documents are actually irrelevant and not interesting to public, then it makes no difference if CDPR makes a public statement or just stays quiet — documents still stay irrelevant.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Valueless?
by Carewolf on Fri 9th Jun 2017 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Valueless?"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

This reasoning makes no sense.
First, CDPR's claim that documents are irrelevant and not interesting could as well be bluff.
Second, if documents are actually irrelevant and not interesting to public, then it makes no difference if CDPR makes a public statement or just stays quiet — documents still stay irrelevant.

No, in whataboutism, the content of documents is not important, the important thing is to make the other side lose face. By preempting the narative they stop that possibility, now the documents will only have consequences if they actually contain anything of genuine public interest.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Valueless?
by Alfman on Fri 9th Jun 2017 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Valueless?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Carewolf,

No, in whataboutism, the content of documents is not important, the important thing is to make the other side lose face. By preempting the narative they stop that possibility, now the documents will only have consequences if they actually contain anything of genuine public interest.



I agree with CATs, the contents of the documents is pivotal as to whether there was ever a serious threat. If they are irrelevant, then there wasn't much of a threat to begin with. Saying the documents aren't significant doesn't actually change whether or not they actually are.


Forgive this example for being so dark, but I'm using it to make a point:

Abductor: "You'd be wise to pay the $50k ransom if you want to see your children again"

Parents: "Nah, the kids are largely old and not representative of the current vision for what we were planning."

Now perhaps it's true the parents don't care and the threat really is meaningless. However if they're lying strategically, then they still stand to loose something that's very valuable to them after all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Valueless?
by CATs on Fri 9th Jun 2017 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Valueless?"
CATs Member since:
2017-06-09

Exactly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Valueless?
by CATs on Fri 9th Jun 2017 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Valueless?"
CATs Member since:
2017-06-09

So you are saying they "saved face" just because the news about them being hacked came from them and not from 3rd party? Kind of a trivial achievement at best, I may say. Also, nothing new -- such practice of preempting is very, very common. Kind of "make the best out of a bad situation". That does NOT change the relevance and importance of the documents themselves in any way.

Edited 2017-06-09 16:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ssokolow
by ssokolow on Fri 9th Jun 2017 09:23 UTC
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

It wouldn't surprise me if it were a promo stunt.

This is the parent company of GOG, which lost one of my friends as a customer after they lied about going out of business as a promo stunt.

Reply Score: 2

lol hax
by chrish on Fri 9th Jun 2017 12:01 UTC
chrish
Member since:
2005-07-14

Assuming this is legit and not a cyberpunk promo stunt (I think it's real), I sort of hope this blows up in the thieves' faces...

Everyone loves CD Projekt Red (except maybe Andrzej Sapkowski but that's his poor business decision's fault).

Reply Score: 2

RE: lol hax
by leech on Sat 10th Jun 2017 02:59 UTC in reply to "lol hax"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

There are some that aren't too happy that Witcher 3 hadn't made its way to Linux yet, wven though there were several things pointing to the port happening.

Reply Score: 2

One thing to note here
by przemo_li on Mon 12th Jun 2017 11:44 UTC
przemo_li
Member since:
2010-06-01

One thing to note here is that CDPR is (or is part of) a company that is publicly traded.

So such out-of-the-blue revile of important materials for yet to be released game would negatively affect company. By being open about situation CDPR diffuse that damage.

Also by being open they generate more publicity for the game. So they pull small advantage from otherwise minor-to-major disaster. Good. Witcher 1/2/3 where all good games. I would live CDPR had as much resources and time to do cyperpunk, but if they can't they should salvage as much as possible.

Or maybe released materials will really be old. Then in the end CDPR will come out stronger (after release of cyperpunk will show how much more there is to the game ;) )

Reply Score: 2