Hogwarts Legacy - Not as good as Dog Kid University

[Strafe]

10 minutes ago, Nick R said:

 

 

Rowling used the same pun when she linked to the blog post she wrote when she first went into detail about her transphobic views:

 

 

 

I thought I remembered that the blog post itself was also originally titled/URL'd "TERF Wars", before it was quickly renamed to the less snappy "JK Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues".

 

However I can't confirm that; as far as I can tell, Archive.org has only preserved pages with the latter URL and title. And following the link in JKR's above tweet, it now takes you to her site's "Answers to Questions" page, rather than to the essay.

I just thought it was a splatoon reference. Can’t imagine Rowling playing splatoon

[Down by Law]

Arsetera don't allow you to talk about Cyberpunk either, yet it very likely given the number of votes and the amount of discussion in the thread that it wll be Rllmuk's best game of 2022 that wasn't released in 2022. It's incredibly reductive to just outright ban things.

[Mogster]

Just now, thesnwmn said:

 

I don't think it's being misinterpreted, just a statement that reverse of your position applies.

 

It is those against the purchasing of the game who risk creating a narrative that the success of this game directly reflects support for JKR's views.

 

That just isn't the case. So by all means don't support it. But vilifying those who does creates the situation people might be worried about.

That's demonstrably not true though. That narrative already exists, as shown by Rowling's own tweets.

[thesnwmn]

Just now, Mogster said:

That's demonstrably not true though. That narrative already exists, as shown by Rowling's own tweets.

 

Why accept it?

 

Rowling can use it as she wants. And will. So ignore her. What matters is the wider take on whether it means that.

 

Stop ceding ground to people who just claim it.

[Mogster]

Just now, thesnwmn said:

 

Why accept it?

 

Rowling can use it as she wants. And will. So ignore her. What matters is the wider take on whether it means that.

 

Stop ceding ground to people who just claim it.

I also agree with it though. Buying the game is a show of support. It sends a message that you're okay with what she's doing, or at least don't care about it.

 

Besides it takes an impressive amount of doublethink to think that buying a product that directly benefits Rowling is somehow a protest.

[thesnwmn]

2 minutes ago, Mogster said:

I also agree with it though. Buying the game is a show of support. It sends a message that you're okay with what she's doing, or at least don't care about it.

 

Besides it takes an impressive amount of doublethink to think that buying a product that directly benefits Rowling is somehow a protest.

 

I won't get into whether I think buying it is or isn't showing support because whole my heart says yes I know I'm biased because I don't care about it in the first place. There will be people where I think that's more challenging.

 

But what I don't want to say is that the millions of people who buy this who don't live half their lives on Twitter or online in general. Who maybe have seen a little of the JKR shit through some news web site where whilst it's covered it's nothing compared to the online discourse around it. These people are mostly just unaware of this stuff.

 

So saying "5 million people who bought this agree with JKR's views because she says so" is ceding that narrative to her.

 

A personal choice to sidestep it makes complete sense. But using that to reflect what everyone else is thinking doesn't help imo.

[Darren]

Just now, Mogster said:

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. My whole point is that there's no nuance involved in making a purchase. There's no tick box when you place the order to say whether you agree with Rowling's views, but the implication remains. A purchase of the game shows support for Rowling's views whether you actually support them or not.

 

I don't think anyone on this forum would agree with the hate spewed by Rowling. At least I certainly hope so! 

 

And, as evidenced by the tweet image I posted on the previous page, while YOU (not you Mogster) might not mean your purchase to be taken as evidence of agreement with Rowling's views, Rowling absolutely will. The only way to prevent Rowling from using your purchase as one more piece of "proof" that she's right, is not to make that purchase.

 

I think this is a subtly different argument than the usual one about ethical consumption under capitalism. This is a specific individual explicitly and publicly citing her royalties (i.e. a portion of the revenue from each and every purchase of one of her books or licensed products) as proof that, while a few loudmouthed do-gooders/SJWs/wokeratis/whatever this week's term is are performatively boycotting her output, the majority of her fans are on her side in the trans "debate."

 

So while you might not intend her to use your purchase that way, you know that she will do anyway. If, knowing that, you still go ahead and buy, that's up to you, but do so knowing that you are consciously giving her one more piece of ammunition to fire in this particular culture war, regardless of your own views on the matter.

[Sixkiller]

22 minutes ago, Mogster said:

A purchase of the game shows support for Rowling's views whether you actually support them or not.

 

This is what I would have to fundementally disagree with, and if people on one 'side' believe and act like every person purchasing that game is on the other 'side' then they only risk pushing more people away from their cause and argument, not attracting them to it.  Her name's not on the box.  She's not the director, programmer, writer, or anything else.  It's only really tangentially connected to her as an individual.

 

29 minutes ago, ulala said:

 

Then you had better read up on how HP is full of shit like this.

 

I've googled it, but can't find anything that points to the content of HP books/films/etc being transphobic, all the content I can see relates to the idea that the 'magic' of HP has been ruined by her subsequent political output.  That doesn't diminish the value that I can see for some to opt out because of her views, but it also doesn't diminish my feeling that people enjoying HP is in itself a problematic thing itself, so long as they keep their distance from the creator's post-HP obsessions?

[Rex Grossman]

I tell you what though, this thread has really reminded me how much I hate it when men call women cunts.

 

And that's not connected to my feelings about JKR, I just see it as the most misogynist way we as men can talk about women. I really hate it. Also doesn't affect how I think about people on here who have called her that. 

 

Anyway, as you were. 

[Down by Law]

Just had a look to see how this is actually doing, and unsurprisingly it's doing very well. PS5 version is the top seller at Amazon and it's high up the steam chart too. The IP is just that strong, it's like trying to boycott Fifa because they are a bunch of corrupt cretins. At least it's not called JK Rowling's Hogwarts Legacy I suppose.

 

 

£65 for Forspoken though, on PC, jesus christ 

 

 

[Mogster]

17 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

So saying "5 million people who bought this agree with JKR's views because she says so" is ceding that narrative to her.

 

A personal choice to sidestep it makes complete sense. But using that to reflect what everyone else is thinking doesn't help imo.

I haven't said this. I've said many times that a purchase of the game is perceived this way, regardless of the intention of the person buying it. Lots of people will buy this game and be completely in the dark regarding Rowling's views, but the success of the game will still be used to indicate support.

 

14 minutes ago, Sixkiller said:

This is what I would have to fundementally disagree with, and if people on one 'side' believe and act like every person purchasing that game is on the other 'side' then they only risk pushing more people away from their cause and argument, not attracting them to it.

Again, I have claimed no such thing.

 

15 minutes ago, Sixkiller said:

I've googled it, but can't find anything that points to the content of HP books/films/etc being transphobic, all the content I can see relates to the idea that the 'magic' of HP has been ruined by her subsequent political output.  That doesn't diminish the value that I can see for some to opt out because of her views, but it also doesn't diminish my feeling that people enjoying HP is in itself a problematic thing itself, so long as they keep their distance from the creator's post-HP obsessions?

There is certainly transphobic content in her Strike novels, but Harry Potter's issues lie more in the realms of casual racism (Cho Chang, 'nuff said), and indeed the general attitude towards not challenging the toxic status quo. That steve video essay on the subject posted a while ago addresses this stuff perfectly, highlighting for instance how Hermione is teased for her anti-slavery activism, and eventually proven "wrong" for wanting to free the house elves.

 

It's not like the pages of Harry Potter are filled with overt hatred and bigotry, but you'd have to be very selective to not think they're at all problematic.

[Mallet]

1 hour ago, Zael said:

 

If you're actually concerned about these other issues, would it not be better to discuss those issues in the relevant threads, rather than using those issues as a tool to shutdown discussion of this issue?

I'm not trying to shut down discussions, just pointing out the issues I see with people calling others bad and horrible while themselves, by their own reasoning, showing support for equally bad practices. 

 

In all honesty I will freely admit to being a selfish asshole who doesn't concern himself with much beyond his immediate family and friends. 

 

The difference is I won't call someone who buys this game a transphobe just as I won't accuse anyone who plays Fifa of supporting the practice of hooking kids on predatory gambling habits. 

[footle]

33 minutes ago, Mogster said:

I haven't said this. I've said many times that a purchase of the game is perceived this way, regardless of the intention of the person buying it. Lots of people will buy this game and be completely in the dark regarding Rowling's views, but the success of the game will still be used to indicate support.

 

Given the game will succeed anyway, wouldn't your time be better spent pushing the idea that the success of the game is entirely independent of Rowling's views on transphobia? Given that there are only going to be a few terfs who deliberately buy it because of Rowling's views on transphobia?

 

You are otherwise ceding an unwinnable argument to a TERF. Which feels a bit ridiculous.

[Mogster]

24 minutes ago, footle said:

 

Given the game will succeed anyway, wouldn't your time be better spent pushing the idea that the success of the game is entirely independent of Rowling's views on transphobia? Given that there are only going to be a few terfs who deliberately buy it because of Rowling's views on transphobia?

 

You are otherwise ceding an unwinnable argument to a TERF. Which feels a bit ridiculous.

Now we're just going round in circles, but once again it isn't ceding anything to not reward Rowling for her views. It's very easy to not buy this game.

 

And yes, I have no doubt the game will be very successful. That doesn't mean I should want to be a part of that.

[footle]

13 minutes ago, Mogster said:

Now we're just going round in circles, but once again it isn't ceding anything to not reward Rowling for her views. It's very easy to not buy this game.

 

And yes, I have no doubt the game will be very successful. That doesn't mean I should want to be a part of that.

And that is fine. But the alternative: “people who buy the game are supportive of her views, because it will be taken to be supportive of her views, by her” is ceding a unwinnable argument. You do get that?

 

it’s like brexit all over again: don’t let the enemy define the ground on which you take your stand.

[Mogster]

3 minutes ago, footle said:

And that is fine. But the alternative: “people who buy the game are supportive of her views, because it will be taken to be supportive of her views, by her” is ceding a unwinnable argument. You do get that?

No? 

 

Once again, nobody's saying that buying the game means you are supportive of Rowling's views. Buying the game absolutely supports her and her views, but that doesn't magically transform the buyer into a bigot if they're not already.

 

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone trying to twist a boycott into somehow supporting the target.

 

3 minutes ago, footle said:

it’s like brexit all over again: don’t let the enemy define the ground on which you take your stand.

You'll have to explain this I'm afraid. Are you saying people against Brexit should have voted for it instead?

[Strafe]

I hope you can upgrade your broomstick in this. Like with heatseekers or something.

[Darren]

48 minutes ago, footle said:

people who buy the game are supportive of her views

 

I don't think anybody is saying this. All anybody is saying is that they will be deemed (by Rowling and Rowling-adjacent bigots) to be supportive. And the only way to avoid being deemed so is not to buy it in the first place. That's it. She's going to say all the people who buy the game are on her side. There's nothing any of us can do about that, all we can control is whether we're in that group or not.

[Graham S]

And we're all very aware this game will be a big hit. That's unstoppable, even if it's sub-par. All I'd be looking to happen in this thread is for:

 

1. Potential purchasers to be aware of what JKR is doing and how that is having really bad effects on real people who deserve better, and for them to consider not playing a game they might enjoy.

2. Make it clear to our trans friends that (almost!) everyone here supports them.

3. Ask people who do want to buy the game, and who do want to talk about its cool spells in this thread, to do it in a way that doesn't make it absolutely clear to everyone that they couldn't give a shit about the bad things, or indeed, actively support them. By which I mean, not some Cultural Revolution-like somber declaration of loyalty to the wellbeing of trans people, I mean, just don't be a dick about things.

[PK]

Why doesn't anyone who wants to play the game, but not financially support a hateful bigot multi-millionaire who is actively campaigning for a marginalised group's lives to be made even harder than they already are, just buy it secondhand?

[Unofficial Who]

6 minutes ago, PK said:

Why doesn't anyone who wants to play the game, but not financially support a hateful bigot multi-millionaire who is actively campaigning for a marginalised group's lives to be made even harder than they already are, just buy it secondhand?

 

Because that would entail waiting for a long time. And missing out on pre-order bonuses I'm guessing.

[dizogg]

15 minutes ago, Unofficial Who said:

 

Because that would entail waiting for a long time. And missing out on pre-order bonuses I'm guessing.

1. Pre-order bonuses? Do people actually give a shit?

2. It would entail waiting a few days at most.

[Strafe]

If there’s a preorder broomstick with heat seeking missiles then I definitely give a shit.

[Strafe]

Here’s my protip. If you have Amazon prime then buy it from there, clock it and then return for free for a full refund using amazons very generous returns window saying it wouldn’t install or something.

 

You can get away with this a few times before Amazon send you an email titled something like “is something wrong” saying that they have noticed you are returning things not in the original packaging and asking if they can do anything to help make the service better.

They don’t mean this, it’s their polite way of saying “stop taking the piss with returns or we’ll ban you”. They know you know it means this. They know that you know that they know that you know they mean this.

 

The timing of when you get this email is dependent on how many times you’ve done it divided by how much your net spend is. Probably.

 

End result: you have played hogwarts legacy. You have got the preorder code. You have stopped Rowling getting money and ripped of Jeff Bezos for a few quid in the process.

 

 

[MK-1601]

One downside of that (versus buying second hand) is that it will still count as a sale.

 

...

 

Personally I'd advise waiting, until such time that you internalise that 'fear of missing out' isn't a real thing and the world is full of games, more than you could ever play in a lifetime(!), that aren't made by massive shitheads.

[Rex Grossman]

7 hours ago, MK-1601 said:

Personally I'd advise waiting, until such time that you internalise that 'fear of missing out' isn't a real thing and the world is full of games, more than you could ever play in a lifetime(!), that aren't made by massive shitheads.

 

Any rational/remotely-intelligent adult should get over that fomo if they try. However I have sympathy with parents who have HP-obsessed kids desperate for this game (especially if their friends are banging on about it). 

 

I don't think telling these children there are many more other games to play is going to have any effect.

[PK]

I suppose depending on their age you could use it as a way to teach your kids about one of the few ways you have to consume ethically under capitalism. 'I know you like Harry Potter, but this is what the author is doing now, so here's how we can still play the game without giving her money' sort of thing

[Halo]

8 minutes ago, PK said:

I suppose depending on their age you could use it as a way to teach your kids about one of the few ways you have to consume ethically under capitalism. 'I know you like Harry Potter, but this is what the author is doing now, so here's how we can still play the game without giving her money' sort of thing

 

[Haribokart]

1 minute ago, Halo said:

 

Ah the good old ‘Sonic anti-capitalist cycle’. Classic 

[PK]

I don't think I agree in this case. This is one of the few occasions when you can actually apply your ethics while consuming a product. All the whatabouttery comparing it to trying to avoid Nestle products or TenCent investments or the works of writers who are dead or musicians who are in prison are not really relevant - this is a relatively rare opportunity to be able trace a direct line from the money you spend to a royalty payment into the pocket of a single individual who is gleefully espousing hateful views about a marginalised group to an enormous audience, and encouraging that audience to do the same, and is apparently suspected of funding organised groups doing the same thing. And that presents an opportunity to divert your money elsewhere while still consuming a product that, for example, your kids are really excited about playing. You might not be able to fully separate the art from the artist but you can fairly easily avoid paying them if they're a hateful dickhead.