It's someone criticizing art from a company with questionable history towards trans people, it's not "outrage culture" you dunce
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
This fetishized in-game ad from Cyberpunk 2077 raises some questions about how the game may depict LGBT (NSFW) [See Staff Post Before Posting]
- Thread starter Deleted member 3093
- Start date
- Status
It's someone criticizing art from a company with questionable history towards trans people, it's not "outrage culture" you dunce
I think we have to figure out intent. Is it representative of trans? Is it representative of a cross dressing? Clarity from CDR would go along way.
Do you think putting the added context of the recent history of the company making the game and trans people makes it harder to give them the benefit of the doubt?
Did you miss the penis?
Yeah, i didn't/don't know the proper wording for that. As i know there are some people that like their bodies that way.
Just spitballin' here:
they're saying that the outrage is false, we're doing it because we love to be outraged, and we're seeing what we want to see so that we could be outraged regardless if we should be outraged.
OP
OP
A trans person with their penis on display and a man in drag with their penis on display is largely indistinguishable for a large portion of society.
Corporate commodification of gender fluidity and trans bodies is an interesting topic for a Cyberpunk game to tackle but unfortunately it's hard to give CDPR the benefit of that reading due to their social media attitudes. I really hope the writing team is better equipped to handle these sorts of topics but every time it comes up I'm going to have the transphobic jokes in the back of my mind which could undermine any potentially transgressive and interesting themes they might have wanted to tackle. I really hope they take these criticisms into account and find a way of handling these sorts of topics well.
Either or is awful depiction, drag queens dont flaunt their penis in your face
The issue here is that regardless of whether it's a trans person or a cross dresser, CDProjektRed had said some suspect/offensive/phobic shit on their social media channels that would lead this poster, regardless of the community in question, as being one made for malicious intent rather than just a depiction of said community.
The poster in universe could be either or, but that isn't why people are getting riled up. The agitation can be deemed appropriate regardless.
Nope, I sure didn't. Having a penis and looking like that makes them trans?
Thought the same. Personally, I don't see what is transphobic about this, but at the same time it leaves a bad taste in my mouth after what has happened with CDPR's social media lately.
Pathetic.
Unless this is a character in the game, I'm not sure we'd ever know whether they're in drag or trans. But I'm really not sure why it matters. Because frankly, there is plenty of misinformation out there and I wouldn't put it past CDPR not even knowing the difference.
I'm sure CDPR will be along shortly to tweet out, "Did you just assume their gender?"
Again.
Because the title of the OP kinda implies it.
But do we know concretely that this is a trans person or something else?
This isn't about giving benefit of the doubt before anyone replies to me, this is about validating what we are seeing so that the outrage and anger is justified.
Having just spent a chunk of today swatting back asinine arguments from shitheels in the other thread, this company deserves zero benefit of the doubt around this kind of thing.
As assholes to sensitive threads are like moths to the flame, I'll paste the longer reply to combat any bullshit toward their former issues surrounding transphobia. Also to highlight that the OP isn't in isolation to people not in the know, this is a trend.
--
Fundamentally [GOG and CDP being different companies in the same group] changes little for me though, and I can get that that's a strict reaction to something for someone, nonsensical even with some of the replies here and perhaps your own referencing of Bethesda and their structure. So, as you appear to be going in earnest I'll try to break it down and foray into the wood of words once more. In doing so I'll likely cover points not in your post, perhaps you completely agree with them, just to give some bedrock around it considering some of the replies here.
This is someone choosing not to buy a game, that's it.
It's easy to envisage or act like people unhappy in this thread are red-eyed and crazed, frothing at the mouth, frantically typing their posts as they conitnue to stab needles into tiny Geralt dolls. In reality though, it's just people who are considering their purchasing decision and deciding they don't feel comfortable buying an entertainment product.
The attempt to paint people with the issue as being at an extreme, or overreacting is a common one. It's a tired tactic to win cheap points in the argument. If you can dismiss this all as someone throwing a tantrum and doing something totally unreasonable then you're golden. Look how upset this person is, they must be unstable. They're obviously just being emotional.
People blame companies for the actions over issues, that's how accountability works in the corporate world.
People blame, criticize and hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees. This really isn't anything that should need to be explained and the fact we've had people doing so is frankly bizarre. A company as it's core is a fictional entity. It literally doesn't exist. You have offices, employees, money, product, letterheaded paper and more. You pieces of paper and legal documents that define what the company is, who owns it and more but the actual company itself is immaterial.
Which is kind of the whole point. You have this entity to challenge and criticize, or respect and follow. One purpose of this shell is very much to provide a blank form capture for the business or institution as a whole, as opposed to any singular individual. So the idea that noone should criticize a company in favour of an individual is one that's so childlike in its naivety I can't take it seriously, especially if you're growing up in any modern society. When you go on to suggest it's "fucking cowardly" to criticize a company instead of directly targetting specific employees then, sorry, but this abundantly clear that your only issue with this all is that it's CDPR/CDP/GoG involved, who have happened to make some absolutely stellar video games in their past.
I highly doubt if they saw someone criticizing one of the major banks or supermarkets they'd be willing to type paragraph upon paragraph about how it's "fucking cowardly" to attack a company instead of individual people.
It wasn't the company though, it was a person on twitter!
Again, this level of naivety and feigned ignorance over things that are common practice in every other facet of business and industry is one that's hard to take seriously. The person didn't just fart and land on the desk in the office, primed to write a shitty tweet. They were hired, they were told the remits of their position, they may or may not have had the tweet vetted by at least one other employee before it was sent – and yes, I have worked within marketing departments of large organizations. It's rarely some spotted teen who's been allowed to run rampant with the front-facing image of the company without restriction.
That's what this is, and that's what twitter is. It's a very conscious front-face to your company that can be used to directly engage with your community. Anyone hiring for, and anyone applying for, this position would know this and understand the importance of it.
"Gut writes shitty tweet, guy gets fired" is a reduction of what happens.
Hiring for the above positions should rely on some background into the person their hiring's activity on social media, not least because this person is front-facing in a digital position where they'll actively been communicating on your behalf. It's not some NSA level nonsense, just a cursory scroll through public pages to get a sense of some of their vocal positions. It's basic due-dilligence for the role, done in minutes while assessing candidates. So it's likely it occured and nothing was raised, but it's a potential area for things like this to be caught.
So you've got your written job spec (likely written/agreed by people outside of the hiring manager). You have your hiring manager. Now you've hired the little would-be devil. You have an induction, you train him. At this point you might be congizent of the fact you've had prior twitter controversies within your family of companies, and knowing how one can affect the other perhaps you labour the point of being careful what to post. It's not comprehensive but it's key guidance on the tone your company wishes to write with, the remits of what they can and can't go for (politics, social issues, competition, the like). This is an important step as it's the bridge between their past experience within media positions, and how you would like for them to represent you. This can be as vague and as strict as it likes, but it's defined by the client/employer.
So.. guy writes shitty tweet.. From this point it's not even about the guy any more. That part of the story is locked in time, and now the only matter of meaning is how the management and wider entity react.
It's here where people galvanise their long lasting opinions, not the actual act.
Employees have done shit things in abundance, it's a tricky thing for a company to handle granted but if done right it can almost completely reverse the tide of good-will. This is because we largely recognise that yes, any employee of a company can go rogue and do whatever so it can be hard to not have such an event occur within a large organization over the span of many years. Instead it shifts to how this event is handled, whether similar events have occured recently, how swiftly a response is made, what that response is and whether ongoing any shift or change. It varies from situation from situation but you get the gist of it.
In this case it's where most people feel GOG and CDP have let the ball drop.
Firing the person isn't the start and end of this, nor is it particularly worthy of praise (nor scorn either). You would expect any major company to fire someone over transphobic tweets. There's poorly worded tweets and then there's mocking the entire notion of gender identity. We've established there's internal scrutiny to be cast on the hiring and training process, but now it shifts to how they were fired and how that was communicated with those hurt.
"It's gotten too much" as the sole reason for firing someone for the above is pathetic, and – with that we have – honestly doesn't point to much more than "you've become more hassle than you're worth to us".
Firing the person certainly shows they understand that there was a negative reaction to their actions, but in isolation it doesn't indicate much more. You have a very real financial and business incentive to fire them, even outside of any concern for LGBTQ+ rights. So further clarification is needed at that stage, to see whether CDP/GOG understand the ramifications of the tweet within the community and how it's hurt players. You'd want a statement put out pretty prompty to reassure that, to which we got:
Which, as with the above, misses the mark again. "Sorry to all those offended" is not an apology for the action. It's an apology solely if it offended you, when it should be an apology regardless because the issue is the mocking in the tweet not the reaction to it. Harming somoene is rarely anyone's intention, so again – nothing really much here. No outreach toward the trans and NB community, just a "sorry for the offense".
So it's felt that nothing was really understood in what was actually wrong in the scenario, despite a corrective action (the firing) being made. Then you have this pop up:
Which is responded to with this:
Even less understanding and zero apology. Which will lead onto..
GOG, CDP and CDPR are all separate!
In the wake of the GOG tweet the fired community manager said this:
Naturally they want all of the good will from The Witcher 3 and the CDPR brand to splash over onto GOG and it has. However you can't try and have that be a one way street. If you're congizent of the fact that your brands are associated and you're leveraging good will from that, then you need to accept that if one is stained by something like a PR mishap then it is likely to have consequences for the wider group. Certainly if you're having repeat issues on social media, there should be a focus on ensuring group-wide communications are consistent and managed.
So when you find a situation where two parts of this connected group are getting in hot water about mocking the exact same topic, and when apologies or no-apology is given in the wake are unsatisfactory you might land on not wishing to support any aspect of CDP until they make strides toward changing that attitude, and actually understanding the impact the actions have had within the community. Frankly, if they don't show much regard for the community in the wake of it being mocked when why should the community follow them blindly into the next purchase?
Vote with your wallets!
Ah yes, the long-repeated mantra that's brought out and vigirously waved around when microtransactions, loot boxes, sub-60fps performance and the like are found in games. We must vote with our wallets to discourage these actions so that they might alter them in the future!
Except when it comes to trans and NB rights when met against CDPR. If it was loot boxes and The Witcher 4, there'd be an uproar and voting of wallets. If there were transphobic comments put out by an EA social media account for which little was done to remedy the issue, people would cry to vote with our wallets.
This combination though; we have a minority group that's commonly not taken seriously against one of the most beloved developers this generation, with legions of people who feel emotionally invested because these are the people that made their game of the generation. This becomes a little different. It shouldn't, but it does and it's something that's obvious in a number of interactions in the thread.
Still not done?
That's all to say that choosing to not buy a product from a company because of their actions, and how that's affected you, is nothing new. It's nothing extreme. It happens in every B2C and B2B industry and it's certainly nothing worthy of rebuke. It's an incredibly harmless action that the majority here promote unless it's within a certain few set of circumstances.
As assholes to sensitive threads are like moths to the flame, I'll paste the longer reply to combat any bullshit toward their former issues surrounding transphobia. Also to highlight that the OP isn't in isolation to people not in the know, this is a trend.
--
Fundamentally [GOG and CDP being different companies in the same group] changes little for me though, and I can get that that's a strict reaction to something for someone, nonsensical even with some of the replies here and perhaps your own referencing of Bethesda and their structure. So, as you appear to be going in earnest I'll try to break it down and foray into the wood of words once more. In doing so I'll likely cover points not in your post, perhaps you completely agree with them, just to give some bedrock around it considering some of the replies here.
This is someone choosing not to buy a game, that's it.
It's easy to envisage or act like people unhappy in this thread are red-eyed and crazed, frothing at the mouth, frantically typing their posts as they conitnue to stab needles into tiny Geralt dolls. In reality though, it's just people who are considering their purchasing decision and deciding they don't feel comfortable buying an entertainment product.
The attempt to paint people with the issue as being at an extreme, or overreacting is a common one. It's a tired tactic to win cheap points in the argument. If you can dismiss this all as someone throwing a tantrum and doing something totally unreasonable then you're golden. Look how upset this person is, they must be unstable. They're obviously just being emotional.
People blame companies for the actions over issues, that's how accountability works in the corporate world.
People blame, criticize and hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees. This really isn't anything that should need to be explained and the fact we've had people doing so is frankly bizarre. A company as it's core is a fictional entity. It literally doesn't exist. You have offices, employees, money, product, letterheaded paper and more. You pieces of paper and legal documents that define what the company is, who owns it and more but the actual company itself is immaterial.
Which is kind of the whole point. You have this entity to challenge and criticize, or respect and follow. One purpose of this shell is very much to provide a blank form capture for the business or institution as a whole, as opposed to any singular individual. So the idea that noone should criticize a company in favour of an individual is one that's so childlike in its naivety I can't take it seriously, especially if you're growing up in any modern society. When you go on to suggest it's "fucking cowardly" to criticize a company instead of directly targetting specific employees then, sorry, but this abundantly clear that your only issue with this all is that it's CDPR/CDP/GoG involved, who have happened to make some absolutely stellar video games in their past.
I highly doubt if they saw someone criticizing one of the major banks or supermarkets they'd be willing to type paragraph upon paragraph about how it's "fucking cowardly" to attack a company instead of individual people.
It wasn't the company though, it was a person on twitter!
Again, this level of naivety and feigned ignorance over things that are common practice in every other facet of business and industry is one that's hard to take seriously. The person didn't just fart and land on the desk in the office, primed to write a shitty tweet. They were hired, they were told the remits of their position, they may or may not have had the tweet vetted by at least one other employee before it was sent – and yes, I have worked within marketing departments of large organizations. It's rarely some spotted teen who's been allowed to run rampant with the front-facing image of the company without restriction.
That's what this is, and that's what twitter is. It's a very conscious front-face to your company that can be used to directly engage with your community. Anyone hiring for, and anyone applying for, this position would know this and understand the importance of it.
"Gut writes shitty tweet, guy gets fired" is a reduction of what happens.
Hiring for the above positions should rely on some background into the person their hiring's activity on social media, not least because this person is front-facing in a digital position where they'll actively been communicating on your behalf. It's not some NSA level nonsense, just a cursory scroll through public pages to get a sense of some of their vocal positions. It's basic due-dilligence for the role, done in minutes while assessing candidates. So it's likely it occured and nothing was raised, but it's a potential area for things like this to be caught.
So you've got your written job spec (likely written/agreed by people outside of the hiring manager). You have your hiring manager. Now you've hired the little would-be devil. You have an induction, you train him. At this point you might be congizent of the fact you've had prior twitter controversies within your family of companies, and knowing how one can affect the other perhaps you labour the point of being careful what to post. It's not comprehensive but it's key guidance on the tone your company wishes to write with, the remits of what they can and can't go for (politics, social issues, competition, the like). This is an important step as it's the bridge between their past experience within media positions, and how you would like for them to represent you. This can be as vague and as strict as it likes, but it's defined by the client/employer.
So.. guy writes shitty tweet.. From this point it's not even about the guy any more. That part of the story is locked in time, and now the only matter of meaning is how the management and wider entity react.
It's here where people galvanise their long lasting opinions, not the actual act.
Employees have done shit things in abundance, it's a tricky thing for a company to handle granted but if done right it can almost completely reverse the tide of good-will. This is because we largely recognise that yes, any employee of a company can go rogue and do whatever so it can be hard to not have such an event occur within a large organization over the span of many years. Instead it shifts to how this event is handled, whether similar events have occured recently, how swiftly a response is made, what that response is and whether ongoing any shift or change. It varies from situation from situation but you get the gist of it.
In this case it's where most people feel GOG and CDP have let the ball drop.
Firing the person isn't the start and end of this, nor is it particularly worthy of praise (nor scorn either). You would expect any major company to fire someone over transphobic tweets. There's poorly worded tweets and then there's mocking the entire notion of gender identity. We've established there's internal scrutiny to be cast on the hiring and training process, but now it shifts to how they were fired and how that was communicated with those hurt.
"It's gotten too much" as the sole reason for firing someone for the above is pathetic, and – with that we have – honestly doesn't point to much more than "you've become more hassle than you're worth to us".
Firing the person certainly shows they understand that there was a negative reaction to their actions, but in isolation it doesn't indicate much more. You have a very real financial and business incentive to fire them, even outside of any concern for LGBTQ+ rights. So further clarification is needed at that stage, to see whether CDP/GOG understand the ramifications of the tweet within the community and how it's hurt players. You'd want a statement put out pretty prompty to reassure that, to which we got:
Which, as with the above, misses the mark again. "Sorry to all those offended" is not an apology for the action. It's an apology solely if it offended you, when it should be an apology regardless because the issue is the mocking in the tweet not the reaction to it. Harming somoene is rarely anyone's intention, so again – nothing really much here. No outreach toward the trans and NB community, just a "sorry for the offense".
So it's felt that nothing was really understood in what was actually wrong in the scenario, despite a corrective action (the firing) being made. Then you have this pop up:
Which is responded to with this:
Even less understanding and zero apology. Which will lead onto..
GOG, CDP and CDPR are all separate!
In the wake of the GOG tweet the fired community manager said this:
..because that's exactly what it was. CDP aren't stupid, they're more than aware that people interlink the three entities and they were always going to when they never shied away, or attempted to distinguish themselves from, the association.
Naturally they want all of the good will from The Witcher 3 and the CDPR brand to splash over onto GOG and it has. However you can't try and have that be a one way street. If you're congizent of the fact that your brands are associated and you're leveraging good will from that, then you need to accept that if one is stained by something like a PR mishap then it is likely to have consequences for the wider group. Certainly if you're having repeat issues on social media, there should be a focus on ensuring group-wide communications are consistent and managed.
So when you find a situation where two parts of this connected group are getting in hot water about mocking the exact same topic, and when apologies or no-apology is given in the wake are unsatisfactory you might land on not wishing to support any aspect of CDP until they make strides toward changing that attitude, and actually understanding the impact the actions have had within the community. Frankly, if they don't show much regard for the community in the wake of it being mocked when why should the community follow them blindly into the next purchase?
Vote with your wallets!
Ah yes, the long-repeated mantra that's brought out and vigirously waved around when microtransactions, loot boxes, sub-60fps performance and the like are found in games. We must vote with our wallets to discourage these actions so that they might alter them in the future!
Except when it comes to trans and NB rights when met against CDPR. If it was loot boxes and The Witcher 4, there'd be an uproar and voting of wallets. If there were transphobic comments put out by an EA social media account for which little was done to remedy the issue, people would cry to vote with our wallets.
This combination though; we have a minority group that's commonly not taken seriously against one of the most beloved developers this generation, with legions of people who feel emotionally invested because these are the people that made their game of the generation. This becomes a little different. It shouldn't, but it does and it's something that's obvious in a number of interactions in the thread.
Still not done?
That's all to say that choosing to not buy a product from a company because of their actions, and how that's affected you, is nothing new. It's nothing extreme. It happens in every B2C and B2B industry and it's certainly nothing worthy of rebuke. It's an incredibly harmless action that the majority here promote unless it's within a certain few set of circumstances.
OP
OP
There's something precious about a user commenting that they wish people would stop looking at a cyberpunk text with even a slight critical eye. Kind of demonstrates just how little some people understand about cyberpunk.
Intent is important, but so is result. If this is a character in drag, it is virtually indistinguishable from a trans person, and thus, the perception is the same.
Well based solely on the style of makeup done, I would assume that person is a drag queen - also notice how the chest is completely obscured. But if it is a trans person then that is pretty messed up.
sort of agree and its not attacking anyone or doing anything anyone could view as bad or demeaning maybe overtly sexual but not offensive
The Image would be fine and kinda brave for other companies (that are not openly transphobic). most trans and gay representation in the Media is still the sledgehammer method of "Hey! hey listen! I am gay/trans! Hey listen! Look at me being gay/trans and doing gay/trans things!" Rarely is it subtle or just accepted without comment.
But this is CDPR and just a fuck you from them to their critics.
But this is CDPR and just a fuck you from them to their critics.
Thank you for giving me money, but still pointing out what could be read as mockery of a marginalized group that faces harassment and abuse to the point of murder is pretty fucking important.
I'm going to go look up these terms, I am admittedly fairly new to these words
Bye Felicia.
People like you make me sick. Enjoy your privilege and your transphobic game.
From Contrapoints: A person wears drag until they choose to undress. A trans person sticks with their look.
I'm not addressing the OP because people are rightly slamming CDPR enough, but I wonder where you draw the line between indies and corporations. Toby Fox started out on Kickstarter but the sales of Undertale allowed him to pay a company to translate Undertale and Deltarune to Japanese. Is he starting to become a corporation?
sure that could technically work as a portmanteau but does it actually fit in with the rest of the theme that's present?
Couldn't have said it better myself - This would be a rad concept to tackle in a cyberpunk game and I personally don't think it's problematic at face value, but CDPR has zero benefit of the doubt after their previous attitudes on social media
Given the company's history, the burden of proof shouldn't be on us, it's on them.
'Chrome' was the name of the gear books for the tabletop RPG.
I may be mistaken, but the ad looks like a nod toward the illustrations from the original tabletop RPG to me. Same punk/glam vibes.
Agree, this just looks like a young woman that enjoys the eh beauty of body engineering in the future.
Is there context with CDPR and transphobia? I'm asking because it reads like that's what you're saying, and I'd be really interested to learn what the context is. I don't really know CDPR.
EDIT: Just saw Kyuuji's post! Reading that one now.
The thing is, being mentally divercoed from your body because of all the modifications, implants etc until every "biological identity" looses all it's meaning is a great cyberpunk theme that makes sense to lead to a cynical in-universe-marketing poster/strategy like this one.
Problem is that CDPR undeniably has a real problem with transphobia and I do not trust them to tackle the topic in a earnest, productive way.
Problem is that CDPR undeniably has a real problem with transphobia and I do not trust them to tackle the topic in a earnest, productive way.
Fair enough. Given their history, it would be very ideal for them to clarify their intention and its ties to diagetic or non-diagetic representation.
My secondary query was independent of the topic.
Last edited:
- Status