Wouldn't know what's left to discuss or debate in this regard anyway.

It's blatantly obvious and plain to see for everyone that imposed checkbox ticking, forced quotas and compliance with DEI/ESG doesn't work - unless you're the Guillemot brothers and deliberately devalue and drive down your company's share price with utter shite like Star Wars Outlaws or Assassin's Creed Shadows in order to then buy back the shares for pocket change and regain full control of... what little there's left of Ubisoft's value and more importantly reputation at this point.

Because a conspiracy based on blaming a group of 12 employees or so feels rather daft.

This isn't the world of Deus Ex, where every conspiracy theory is true, especially the contradictory ones. And Unatco only appeared so small due to the conservation of detail in storytelling...and was a puppet to a much larger, more sinister organization.

Looking at how this thread already devolved into name-calling and rage-posting, I think you already have your answer.

not all, just an increasing number of conspiracy theories:
* Hunter Biden laptop was real despite all claims to contrary (even in the middle of a debate)
* COVID shots did not stop transmission despite all claims to contrary (note: I don't think the manufacturers ever claimed that they did stop transmission, it was mostly politicians and news talking heads that did)
* Steele Dossier findings were fake despite claims to contrary
* "MAPs" (as some like to call them) apparently did have secret underground rings (but just not in pizza parlors) (see Epstein & Diddy, currently developing & not all details are known yet)
* FBI did spy on Trump's 2016 campaign (Crossfire Hurricane investigation)

funny aside-question about weather control & climate change: is it really a group of people who claim that govt can control climate but not weather, against another group of people that govt can control weather but not climate?

They think they will be one of the super special commies that get to keep their shit, so they be cheerin' for trash like forced DEI in games. Shit is whack and only stab em in the back in the end but try tellin' them that.

Talks about SBI specifically are indeed mostly pointless. Because it's a symptom, not the cause. Consultancy firms like them are a dime a dozen, they're just the most known one and the reason the general public, especially in the gaming sphere, started taking interest in the topic at all.

The main coversation should be had about the machine behind this system. Namely ESG ratings (or any soon-to-be quivalent like BRIDGE). The entire purpose of all those consultancy groups is to raise this rating for whoever hires them. Which leads to easier and more advantageous access to the multi-trillion money well called investment money, usually through better interest rates on loans (based on the mentioned rating), distributed by holding companies, one of which is the author of the very metric used by pretty much everyone to measure that.

The very core of the system is where it all stems from, tackling the cancer on the surface level and cutting off/treating the already metastacised tumors will not do much in the long run, if anything.

However, reasonable debates regarding this topic rarely happen anyway and are by nature political, due to the topics closely related to that. You get the usual groups of denialists, proponents, the un/misinformed or those that just don't care but still have to voice how much they don't care etc., shouting at each other and such exchanges usually quickly erupt in a bad way.

I believe GOG forum mods are reasonable people, but in the vast majority of cases, locking the threads after the first signs of it going downhill is probably the best thing to do to prevent headaches.

This is an interesting point. But it makes me wonder what sort of investor is willing to prioritize arbitrary metrics over bottom-line fundamentals and delivering what consumers want. Presumably, not the sort of investor that is looking for a good ROI?

Also, I would like to know who sets these ESG ratings and how they are calculated.

The criteria is set directly by Blackrock. You even have some ridiculous stuff like this:
https://www.esgtoday.com/blackrock-links-borrowing-costs-to-diversity-and-sustainable-investing-targets/

Most medium to large sized companies have dedicated ESG departments, whose job it is to put out public ESG reports, detailing the "progress" said company made in X or Y regard and ensure everything is up to snuff within the company itself, often promoting related stuff etc. This is mandatory, if you want to be eligible at all and why you will usually find an ESG section on the web pages of majority of companies. Different companies go about it differently. Some focus only on the E aspect (environmental), some mostly on the S aspect (social), or both. It permeates the entire world at this point, at least the "western" part of it and the vast majority conform simply due to the potential monetary gain. And even non-Blackrock investment firms still utilize the ESG rating. In nearly every single investment prospectus these days, you will find a section dedicated to ESG. So basically whatever Blackrock decides, goes.

As for the why, that's a very hard question to answer. But when you have a "fuck you" amount of money in your hands, you can do basically whatever you want. We can only speculate about the true reasons, but my guess is these people believe they are doing something objectively good and act like you can't put a price on "good" and will push "the good" as much as circumstances allow.

As for ESG itself, the E part (environmental) could even be agreed with in some regards (not all). Your business should probably not receive too much money if you are dumping toxic sludge into the nearest river. But it's the S (social), that's the main problem and has no business being there. That's where all the suff like quotas on diversity in everything, forced % of women in top managerial positions and other nonsense comes from. And that is where all the "consultancy specialists", including SBI, come in. To ensure you products are up to the "ESG standard".

The world did not suddenly decide to start doing that on its own 10-15 years ago. There was an active push behind it with monetary rewards attached, often too tempting to pass on from a business perspective.

For an example, look no further than CD Projekt itself, jumping on the wagon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU-db73BAFI

The United Nations, Klaus Schwab/the WEF, these individuals, a bunch of others.
Blackrock, Vanguard, Statestreet and similar investors may be (indirectly) involved as well.

Feel free to track down this information on the websites of the above mentioned yourself.

from EU - https://finance.ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance/tools-and-standards/esg-rating-activities_en

Oh, they appear to be completely imaginary.

Basically back/ass patting pension funds, if I loosely understand this article https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Socially_responsible_investing correctly.

Which of course leads to the magical pot of gold at the end of the non-existent rainbow, how these two conceits are connected.

Those stuff involving "ratings", certain rules in order to get better ratings and in the end better financial support if the rating and general behavior is considered "in line with this agenda", is nothing new but surely it was increasing year after year... and slowly gamers are feeling the somewhat nearly relentless "grip" of those actions done on the background; as it is arriving at their games. So far it was mostly only a "conspiracy-theory" from certain non-social or non-aligned (with popular beliefs or social norms) peoples, some minorities which are actually part of the diversity those rules seems to enjoy to boost. Yet, slowly people start to notice... nope... those sort of stuff is actually pretty real and already "inside everyones heads or hands", enjoyable or not, it is simply there.

Anyway, those investors are not "philanthropist" in nature, as it simply is not their main interest. They are not against it but it is not the main target acting toward it because all they, in the end, truly care about is "getting a good ROI = return on investment", nothing else: Those investors are by far the biggest source of finances anyone could dream of; so if a project is very big it is almost impossible avoiding it unless some company is already dirty rich by themself. So, it is increasingly important with increased size of a company or project, in order to be able to get proper financial support.

To those investors, what is truly important is to get the lowest risk possible with the biggest "returns"; not to complicated to understand. They kinda was setting up a certain strategy, those rules... in order to "increase" the likelihood of the "good fortune" they are looking for, nothing else. The rules are basically the ones which are politically in the highest "correctness" no matter be it social, on the environment or what else it is focusing on. However... nowadays the "green" parties are not that strong anymore so, some social stuff is with higher success on the acceptance of the society.

Albeit... recently it seems like the entire "forcing rules for even better success" was going overboard for many companies involved and it looks like the entire matter is now with some side effects actually no benefit to the "original intention" anymore. I guess this entire matter may need to become reformed in some way but i dunno how fast those changes may happen.

That is the main marketing statement of ESG, as put forward by Blackrock, yes. You can either buy it and move on, or look at the real life situation in the past couple of years at least, and whether it actually corresponds to those claims and start asking questions.

Because that claim is true in the Blackrock - companies relationship (Blackrock can simply enforce it, as evidenced by pretty much everyone adopting it because again - "fuck you" amounts of cash), but absolutely not true in the companies-customers relationship (where they just do not have that much direct power over the customer). Especially once these "rules" start seeping into the end products, most egregiously from the "S" pillar of the ESG. It is very obvious when that starts happening in the entertainment industry and it eventually started boiling into the widespread dislike of the entire concept. This creates a paradoxical situation, where companies are rewarded from above, but punished from below. And they usually come to a point, where a decision is made. Between the surety of investment money, which will guaranteeably cover a big chunk of any expenditures beforehand if they just follow a set of "simple" rules, say the right words and do the right things, vs risking trying to satisfy the needs of their actual end customers and hoping it is enough to make profit afterwards. And as you said, it's about minimizing risk right? :)

So many, if not most do take the first option. And any company going all in on ESG becomes de facto dependent on funding from above and no longer puts the customers' needs and wants as their top priority. This funding model will keep them going for a certain amount of time, the length of which depends on many factors which would take too long to cover, but it's beneficial to the company in the vast majority of cases - in the short to mid-term. But losing a large part or even the vast majority of their customer base over it will eventually catch up to them. They can live off of investment money without turning a profit for only so long. And when that moment comes, they will have become so dependent on this funding model, that they will most likely crumble anyway if they try to change ways. Look no further than Ubisoft for a very recent example. It took a long time, they've been bleeding money for years and years, but it did eventually catch up to them.

The entertainment industry especially is very fickle in this regard. A washing machine maker can only really do so much to "ESG-ify" the end product. They will probably adopt some principles at the company level, like hiring practices and such but little of it will show up in the end product - the washing machine. But it is clearly on display in everything the entertainment industry churns out, be it a game, show or a movie. Which is why often, the ESG is actually a trap in this industry. A very alluring one, but still a trap.

Quite. The fact they're forcing it, doubling down even, instead of adjusting the rules to actually fit the real end customer market more is a quite clear sign, that at least one puzzle piece simply does not fit in with any of the others. At least not anymore.