this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
256 points (97.1% liked)
PC Gaming
14601 readers
445 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, assuming they're not redistributing any content from the game, I hope everyone cheering for this realizes that the same justification could be used to forbid emulation, or modding as a whole.
No CD said they are happy for them to make the mod and to have a link for donations to make money from it, but locking it exclusively behind a paywall is the only issue. This has pretty much always been the case in the modding scene .
You are not comprehending my comment at all.
CD Projekt is not the only company in the world and legal precedents affect more than just the case in which they are created. As of right now this isn't a court case, but consider:
Currently it is completely legal to create an emulator provided you write all the code yourself and none of its parts include intellectual property (such as firmware images or copies of games).
Currently it is completely legal to make and distribute patches for, for example, NES game ROMs that contain none of the original information from the game, but merely consist of a list of locations where values should be modified by a specified amount.
To give a non-game example, it is completely legal to distribute a commentary track for a movie so long as you don't include the movie footage within it. Even though that commentary track is essentially useless without a copy of the movie. There even exists sets of instructions for re-cutting movies to create fan edits.
Now, assuming that the mod in question doesn't redistribute parts of Cyberpunk, and is instead a completely separate piece of software that happens to be capable of interfacing with the game, what right does CD Projekt have to tell them what to do? Possibly they use the word "Cyberpunk" in the name of their mod, which is indeed a trademarked term that CD Projekt could potentially assert control of in this case, but other than that?