It's completely understandable that you want to ensure the existence of your channel, but the should absolutely  be another way to release these documents. As it stands for now, all we can do is to take anything you feed us at the face value. I'm sure you understand how problematic that is in many different levels. There is unlikely to ever be a need to name these whistle blowers but the relevant info should still  be released, if for nothing else, at least for journalistic integrity.,(reply>), @Siana Gearz I CAN say you have zero knowledge and with damn good reasoning bordering indisputable proof.<br><br>You made claims about this very specific document. You have not seen the document. I'm positive I don't need to go any further to this. I believe you are intelligent enough to understand it and that your previous work that is completely unrelated to this document do not  bring you any knowledge about the document.<br><br>However, I thank you about the latter part of you comment. That actually had some substantiated info.,(reply>), @anteshell I'm a former industry insider, i worked on a game engine that shipped dozens of (mostly remarkably shitty) Wii and Xbox360 games, i sometimes talk to people. I have worked in other non-gamedev outfits where we had to deal with outsourced QA and the shit they deliver, and everyone else in software development industry will have stories for you like that. You can't say that i have zero knowledge.<br><br>I also co-edited a magazine and stewarded its expansion across regions some 20 odd years ago.<br><br>I'll give you something more specific, Qloc (Poland) was QA on CP77 as well, and i'm lead to believe a third studio as well, not sure who. Seriously 30 people is not even close to sufficient at the project of this scale with like what 500+ head studio devs (+ outsourced devs), nor are 60. You need something on the order of hundreds.,(reply>), @Siana Gearz You make awfully lot of assumption of the documents while not being able to see them. That is just as dumb as trusting someone at the face value. You have no way of knowing of the leaker could be identified from the documents. What's more, have you ever heard of the word "redaction"? That is something you do when you don't want to publish specific parts of a document, ie. those black bars that you often see covering court documents and such. That is often used to cover identities and details where those identities can be pulled from.<br><br>The "other kind of bigger picture" is just you speculating with zero knowledge or proof about those things. <br><br>If nothing else, at least you know how to write a long comment of complete uselessness. You got anything else? At least something useful?,(reply>), I think it's fine if you take his word for it, if you just look at the bigger picture. It's important to protect the individual - keeping his name out of the picture is not enough, the collection of documents does identify the person. Sometimes you in a journalistic capacity have to just roll with documents being unpublishable, hoping more publishable evidence pops up later prompted by what you were able to publish. Once enough people come forward, distilling and anonymising gets much easier. You don't have a choice, journalistic integrity also means protecting the informants, this is an essential obligation! The whistleblower signed an NDA and may suffer insane losses through a lawsuit.<br><br>And the bigger picture is that this sort of QA disaster is very common.<br><br>And the other kind of bigger picture - something he isn't saying and doesn't have information on - is that CDPR probably had more than one QA studio hired; or regardless, they knew of the state of QA and could make an assessment. They knew of the state of the game as well. Did bad QA slow them down? Probably. Still hardly an excuse.