CD Projekt RED - Stays independent

HiddenX

The Elder Spy
Staff Member
Original Sin Donor
Original Sin 2 Donor
Joined
October 18, 2006
Messages
24,632
Location
Germany
Rock Paper Shotgun reports that CD Projekt RED plans to stay independent:

CD Projekt Red won't give up their independence anytime soon - but might be "open" to buying others

"We are not interested in purchases that would only aim to include the acquired companies in our group and consolidate their financial results"

Cyberpunk 2077 and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt makers CD Projekt Red have said in no uncertain terms that they "are not interested" in being acquired by another company, while still leaving the door open for the studio to potentially acquire others in the future.

[...]
Thanks Couchpotato!

More information.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
24,632
Location
Germany
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.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
9,263
Buying others ? Please not like Embracer Group ...
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
22,571
Location
Old Europe
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
40,304
Location
Spudlandia
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
794
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.
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.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
12,482
Location
Good old Europe
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:
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
40,304
Location
Spudlandia
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.
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
794
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.
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
15,047
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.
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.

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.
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.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
12,482
Location
Good old Europe
Back
Top Bottom