Rock Paper Shotgun reports that CD Projekt RED plans to stay independent:
More information.
Thanks Couchpotato!
More information.
CD Projekt RED - Stays independent
- Thread starter HiddenX
- Start date
- Joined
- July 31, 2007
- Messages
- 9,332
Great to hear! After seeing what a great game CP2077 is I hope they keep it up.
That also means I hope they manage to keep most of their team. That's the soul of the company.
If the next game is also noteworthy CDPR will probably, along with FromSoft, my most favorite devs able to push out great games consistently.
That also means I hope they manage to keep most of their team. That's the soul of the company.
If the next game is also noteworthy CDPR will probably, along with FromSoft, my most favorite devs able to push out great games consistently.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 9,332
Buying others ? Please not like Embracer Group ...
Hmm..who knows as Embracer is looking to sell a few studios and Ip's.
don't be deluded; unless they own a majority of shares they will have to sell out if a large enough offer comes in - the bane of being a public company. Hostile take overs are generally not desirable by the acquiring company for various reasons but they do happen. IF they truly wanted to ensure independence they would need to go private.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2021
- Messages
- 821
CD Projekt RED are on the sharemarket. They are owned by shareholders. Statement does not compute. Independence only goes as far as the next quarterly report as Cyberpunk illustrated.
Redglyph
proud GASP member
I don't see how it doesn't compute. The board of directors makes the decision in such a company, and it has decided that they didn't want to be acquired. That doesn't mean that the situation can't change in the future, but that's the current strategy.
Exactly someone would have to buy 50.1% of the shares in an aggressive buyout or sway the board on their side. Basically anything can happen as the decades have shown.
Last edited:
It doesn't work that (exactly); if an offer comes in that is in the best interest of the share holders the board has a 'fiscal' responsibility to accept the offer else face share holder lawsuits. Even if the board doesn't want the company to be acquired if they might accept an offer just for fear of litigation.
This is why companies like 'google' have class a and b shares; the founders kept voting control of the company when they went public so even if they had to 'accept' an offer the shareholders could then vote to reject it. Hence my comment if the founders of cd projekt kept near majority ownership then they could always reject any offer when it came to a vote.
This is one reason i believe that Larian has chosen to remain private. It is the only true method to remain independent. The negative of staying private is strictly $$$ to the founders as public companies have a multiplier applied to their value.
I believe this is also why Valve has chosen to remain private - if they had been a public company i'm quite sure there are several companies which would have gone to extremes to acquire them - and of course Gabe doesn't need the $$$.
(in case you haven't guessed over the years i've grown quite negative towards how the public corporate world works; after all look how ?embarcer(sp)? has ripped apart several interesting studios via acquisitions and then layoffs).
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2021
- Messages
- 821
The owners have <40% of shares. If someone decided they wanted to buy them, they could buy up more than 40% and then would automatically have a controlling interest, and if more than 50% they would do whatever they wanted.
In practical terms, 40% is a huge amount for shareholder leverage so they are safe ... but every public company is available for hostile takeover.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 15,050
Redglyph
proud GASP member
It works like that in general, but there are complementary rules that I wasn't going to copy/paste, because they aren't relevant in this case. Of course, there are ways to dismiss the board elected by the shareholders; either in a scheduled meeting or if there are violations. They're more exceptions than the norm, though.
Sure, this could happen, and (as I pointed out) the strategy may change if such an unlikely event occurred. Or the board may change the strategy next year. Or a meteorite could kill all the board members. That doesn't prevent people from making plans, and that doesn't make those plans invalid. So their statement sounds perfectly reasonable, which was the point here.
If things were as fickle as you all seem to suggest, nobody would even care to try.
Also, anyone taking over would need to find an advantage of such a change of strategy. We have to assume they've made a sound decision, which is unlikely to change in a heartbeat.