Hogwarts Legacy - Not as good as Dog Kid University

[Halo]

Less unethical is key. Besides, any excuse to post that classic image.

[bradigor]

Look buy the game of you want, it's up to you. But just say you care more about the game enjoyment over anything else surrounding it. Or just play it and ignore all the noise. However you cannot then be an ally to those who it affects. 

 

Also pirate the fuck out of it if you want to support trans and NB people and still play a game in a world you grew up loving.

[thesnwmn]

21 minutes ago, bradigor said:

However you cannot then be an ally to those who it affects. 

 

Nah. This is just stupid.

[bradigor]

10 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

Nah. This is just stupid.

 

How so? How are you an ally, whilst buying a product that directly funds a campaign of hate against that group you would claim to support? 

 

JK Rowling does not want us to exist and this will go towards funding and supporting that. 

 

As said but it all you want, but don't then claim to be an ally with us. You may be sympathetic to our community, but an ally you are not. 

 

I mean no disrespect towards anyone who buys the game but those are my feelings.

 

Edit: not you 'you' directly, the wider 'you'

 

[thesnwmn]

Because I think making statements that create such clear sides shut people out of the conversations and push people away from future engagement with the issue. That's not helpful in the long term.

 

No one is not going to buy this based on you saying they won't be an ally if they do. So what we want is to make people aware. Continue to increase their knowledge of the issue and keep them receptive to moving their reaction to JKR or whatever in the future.

 

(and not "you" really but sort of "you" 😅)

[scottcr]

HAhah - I wouldn't be surprised if Stu shoves a review of this on his website claiming it to be the greatest and most important game ever made 

[Gabe]

31 minutes ago, bradigor said:

 

How so? How are you an ally, whilst buying a product that directly funds a campaign of hate against that group you would claim to support? 

 

JK Rowling does not want us to exist and this will go towards funding and supporting that. 

 

As said but it all you want, but don't then claim to be an ally with us. You may be sympathetic to our community, but an ally you are not. 

 

I mean no disrespect towards anyone who buys the game but those are my feelings.

 

Edit: not you 'you' directly, the wider 'you'

 

I'm interested to know what you think about the devs then? Or the voice actor mentioned a few pages ago who has been an ally - is he no longer one in your view?

[bradigor]

That's a completely different thing. They had jobs before this all started with JKR and this affects their careers. Someone choosing to buy this game is not the same thing as someone who works on it and had signed contracts, etc. 

 

Sorry all I know it'd be a mistake to say how I feel as know I can't convey my thoughts clearly enough 

 

 

 

[Floyd]

36 minutes ago, bradigor said:

 

How so? How are you an ally, whilst buying a product that directly funds a campaign of hate against that group you would claim to support? 

 

JK Rowling does not want us to exist and this will go towards funding and supporting that. 

 

As said but it all you want, but don't then claim to be an ally with us. You may be sympathetic to our community, but an ally you are not. 

 

I mean no disrespect towards anyone who buys the game but those are my feelings.

 

Edit: not you 'you' directly, the wider 'you'

 

 

I'm going to buy it. It's nothing personal and if it's a good game then its a good game where probably 100's of decent people worked on it. You cant stop the arseholes as they're everywhere. I think this can be bigger than the original creator or author. For instance, I can still enjoy a film produced by Harvey Weinstein but of course if people don't want to consume something that has ties to horrible person then they are also in the right to do that. 

 

I think you have to be careful as hypocrisy can creep in where one thing is ok and something else is not. If you want to live your life where you are absolutely clued up and in tune with everything you consume to make sure it's ethical, then anyone has a right to do that as well. I'm not having a go....anyone can stick up for anything they believe in, I just don't think it's right to lay responsibility on someone who just wants to enjoy a good game.

[bradigor]

36 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

(and not "you" really but sort of "you" 😅)

 

Sorry. I didn't mean to upset you. I think I should leave now 

[thesnwmn]

I'm not upset.

 

I only meant that my reference to people not not buying the game because you say they are an ally is a reference to you but there's no venom or intent meant here. They're all interesting discussions and perspectives. And that engagement is important.

[thesnwmn]

10 minutes ago, bradigor said:

That's a completely different thing. They had jobs before this all started with JKR and this affects their careers. Someone choosing to buy this game is not the same thing as someone who works on it and had signed contracts, etc. 

 

Sorry all I know it'd be a mistake to say how I feel as know I can't convey my thoughts clearly enough 

 

 

 

 

But if they weren't actively looking for another job during development because of JKR's views are they doing enough?

 

This is the issue with all black and white statements. It's important to express our feelings about this but I just want to be cautious about judging other individuals actions and assigning motivations to them.

[Gabe]

8 minutes ago, bradigor said:

That's a completely different thing. They had jobs before this all started with JKR and this affects their careers. Someone choosing to buy this game is not the same thing as someone who works on it and had signed contracts, etc. 

 

Sorry all I know it'd be a mistake to say how I feel as know I can't convey my thoughts clearly enough 

 

 

 

I wasn't judging or anything, just was curious as to your view. I don't agree with your stance on buying = can't be an ally because I think it rather defines everything by this single action, which seems limiting. But we each have different views and all agree that Rowling is a horrible person, which is the bigger thing to agree on. 

 

No need to stop talking, all our posts are valid in here.

[Mallet]

1 hour ago, PK said:

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.

I don't agree with this at all. 

 

Why does it matter if it is a direct line, an indirect line or some nebulous connection to the people profiting from your purchase? The end result is the same, shitty person got money from you. 

 

Alot of the same people who were in charge at Apple and Foxconn when it emerged about the workers committing suicide are still there. The same people who were a ok with those conditions are still profiting when you buy an IPhone. 

 

Like wise Tencent is still profiting when you buy Elden Ring, the connection isn't as obvious but it is still clearly there. 

 

Whenever you buy Fifa you are giving money to the people who want to get small kids addicted to gambling so they can make more money. 

 

The end result is the same

[Darren]

13 minutes ago, Floyd said:

 

I'm going to buy it. It's nothing personal and if it's a good game then its a good game where probably 100's of decent people worked on it. You cant stop the arseholes as they're everywhere. I think this can be bigger than the original creator or author. For instance, I can still enjoy a film produced by Harvey Weinstein but of course if people don't want to consume something that has ties to horrible person then they are also in the right to do that. 

 

I think you have to be careful as hypocrisy can creep in where one thing is ok and something else is not. If you want to live your life where you are absolutely clued up and in tune with everything you consume to make sure it's ethical, then anyone has a right to do that as well. I'm not having a go....anyone can stick up for anything they believe in, I just don't think it's right to lay responsibility on someone who just wants to enjoy a good game.

 

It's absolutely not hypocritical to take a stance on some issues while accepting that it's basically impossible to take a stance on all issues without becoming a cave dwelling hermit.

[footle]

I'm not going to buy it because:

• I don't care about Harry Potter
• I don't care for JK Rowling's demonisation of trans people.

Whereas, more simply and directly, I don't buy Strike books (and I liked the first two) because "JK Rowling". A much more direct decision impacting the author's public status.

But... I'd probably buy a copy for Switch if it'd help get my seven year old niece off Roblox, simply because that is a slimy exploitative piece of shit. It doesn't matter that there are "other games" when they're that old and it's more about branding and characters they like.

 

So in practice I'm utterly compromised between ideals and family. 

(I mean, I still won't buy it, but I'm not pretending that I wouldn't).

 

(And I'm not pirating anything: I like to know the source of anything I install with administrative permissions on a computer. If you don't, particularly for something as high profile as this, I hope you're now installing stuff within a VM).

[Mallet]

2 minutes ago, Darren said:

 

It's absolutely not hypocritical to take a stance on some issues while accepting that it's basically impossible to take a stance on all issues without becoming a cave dwelling hermit.

I don't think that is hypocritical. 

 

Its when people judge people who don't join the crusade they champion while they themselves ignore other, equally worthy, causes. 

 

Its the people who will label anyone who buys this a bad person for supporting shitty people, all the while tweeting from their fucking iPhone. 

[Strafe]

7 minutes ago, Darren said:

 

It's absolutely not hypocritical to take a stance on some issues while accepting that it's basically impossible to take a stance on all issues without becoming a cave dwelling hermit.

I agree. But - not aimed at you - I do think it’s hypocritical to accuse others of funding trans persecution when you’re doing it yourself in other avenues. 

[g wings]

1 hour ago, bradigor said:

Look buy the game of you want, it's up to you. But just say you care more about the game enjoyment over anything else surrounding it. Or just play it and ignore all the noise. However you cannot then be an ally to those who it affects. 

 

Also pirate the fuck out of it if you want to support trans and NB people and still play a game in a world you grew up loving.

But if you pirate the game then the developers are impacted. 

Anyway, why is THIS the hill to die on rather than all the other ethical hills we choose to ignore? Just because we can trace a line easily doesn’t make it more important. People die every day as part of the supply chain of so much we consume but because they don’t have a famous name that’s ok?

 

If this game sold zero copies would that make her change her views or even combat them?

[Darren]

8 minutes ago, Mallet said:

I don't think that is hypocritical. 

 

Its when people judge people who don't join the crusade they champion while they themselves ignore other, equally worthy, causes. 

 

Its the people who will label anyone who buys this a bad person for supporting shitty people, all the while tweeting from their fucking iPhone. 

 

7 minutes ago, Strafe said:

I agree. But - not aimed at you - I do think it’s hypocritical to accuse others of funding trans persecution when you’re doing it yourself in other avenues. 

 

But this is just "yet you participate in society" in more words.

 

As I said a page or so ago, I think this is subtly different from the usual ethical consumption under capitalism argument, because it's not about funding an organisation with shitty working practices in order to participate in society (buying an iPhone, paying tax to HM Government etc), but funding a particular, egregiously outspoken individual in order to consume a particular piece of entertainment, and one who has expressly linked sales of her output to support for her odious views. Put it this way, I'd have a lot more sympathy for the very intelligent bloke in the well if the final panel of the cartoon had the peasant saying "JK Rowling should lay off trans people" and him replying "yet you buy her games!"

[Strafe]

Just now, Darren said:

 

 

But this is just "yet you participate in society" in more words.

 

 

No it's more expecting people to live to the standards they expect of other people. I'm not talking about iPhones and nike trainers made in sweatshops but there are video game profits that go to worse offenders for trans persecution for sure.

[Zael]

If someone who is trans doesn't see you as an ally because you bought this game, I'm sorry but you can't debate your way out of that. There might be trans people who don't care, or wouldn't go that far, but from what I've seen a lot of trans people have drawn a line on this game. You can buy it, you can say you're not supporting anything, but you can't do a thing about a trans person not seeing you as an ally after you do so. You can do the whole whataboutery thing to your hearts content, but for those trans people who have drawn a line here, you're no longer an ally to them. 

[Rex Grossman]

53 minutes ago, bradigor said:

 

Sorry. I didn't mean to upset you. I think I should leave now 

 

Why would you leave the thread? How is your view less valid now?

[ZOK]

21 hours ago, Darren said:

Unfortunately JK herself has made her income from Potter royalties an explicit indicator of how she's right and it's the kids who are wrong.

 

 

If you can read that and still think that every sale of every Potter related product doesn't boost and embolden her then I don't know what else to tell you.

I don’t read it that way at all. She’s saying she doesn’t care if she loses readers through her views, because she’s rich and continues to make stacks of money regardless.

 

That to me doesn’t equal ‘my sales show my views are right’, even though that’s how people clearly choose to interpret it, and it consequently serves as a neat ‘example’ for discussions like these.

 

Whether it boosts or emboldens her is very hard to tell. I think it’s probably irrelevant - if all sales of all HP product were to hit zero because she is a scumbag, would she stop? She’s richer than god already, and as we’ve seen with Linehan these people are more likely to double down on their odious views than be given any cause for self-reflection.

[Darren]

Just now, Strafe said:

 

No it's more expecting people to live to the standards they expect of other people. I'm not talking about iPhones and nike trainers made in sweatshops but there are video game profits that go to worse offenders for trans persecution for sure.

 

Well there are a couple of things here.

 

First, nobody is expecting anything of anyone, or calling anyone a bad person for buying this game, or anything like that. All that's being said is that if you do so knowing what we do about Rowling's views and her explicit linking of her royalties to the acceptability of her views then you can't claim to be a trans ally. You can still be sympathetic, but you consider your own entertainment/desire to pacify your kids as more important than standing shoulder to shoulder with the trans people who have explained why they'd like you not to buy it. That's all, it's simply a matter of priorities, and everyone's are different.

 

Second, if there are worse offenders than Rowling for trans persecution profiting from video games I'd very much like to know who they are so I can avoid their stuff too.

[Darren]

2 minutes ago, ZOK said:

I don’t read it that way at all. She’s saying she doesn’t care if she loses readers through her views, because she’s rich and continues to make stacks of money regardless.

 

That to me doesn’t equal ‘my sales show my views are right’, even though that’s how people clearly choose to interpret it, and it consequently serves as a neat ‘example’ for discussions like these.

 

Whether it boosts or emboldens her is very hard to tell. I think it’s probably irrelevant - if all sales of all HP product were to hit zero because she is a scumbag, would she stop? She’s richer than god already, and as we’ve seen with Linehan these people are more likely to double down on their odious views than be given any cause for self-reflection.

 

Well, I think that is what she means by it - there are still plenty of people buying my stuff so they must agree with me (or not disagree strongly enough to deprive themselves of my stuff).

 

Of course if her sales did fall through the floor she'd immediately pivot to how she's been cancelled by the snowflake wokerati so we can't win either way, but at least one way we're making her life ever so slightly less comfortable.

[Benny]

13 minutes ago, Rex Grossman said:

 

Why would you leave the thread? How is your view less valid now?

 

I think when people in the thread are responding to criticism of the game pointedly with variations of "well, I'm still buying it, so there" - doesn't it seem obvious why?

 

You can't stop people buying the game, but a lot of people seem to be keen to specifically tell everyone that they are doing so, and also to directly argue to even trans people not only why that's fine, but to also argue they should still be okay with them doing that.

[Rex Grossman]

8 minutes ago, ZOK said:

I don’t read it that way at all. She’s saying she doesn’t care if she loses readers through her views, because she’s rich and continues to make stacks of money regardless.

 

That to me doesn’t equal ‘my sales show my views are right’, even though that’s how people clearly choose to interpret it, and it consequently serves as a neat ‘example’ for discussions like these.

 

Whether it boosts or emboldens her is very hard to tell. I think it’s probably irrelevant - if all sales of all HP product were to hit zero because she is a scumbag, would she stop? She’s richer than god already, and as we’ve seen with Linehan these people are more likely to double down on their odious views than be given any cause for self-reflection.

 

And if JKR started to make less money each year from Harry Potter properties I don't think that would make the lives of trans people any easier.

 

It's one thing a person saying they won't support a game connected to Harry Potter (or shop in Primark or buy other Bloomsbury books or whatever) because you don't want to give money to JRK directly or indirectly - but let's not kid ourselves that it will cause JKR to rethink her views or that this game flopping makes life easier for trans people.

[Rex Grossman]

Just now, Benny said:

 

I think when people in the thread are responding to criticism of the game pointedly with variations of "well, I'm still buying it, so there" - doesn't it seem obvious why?

 

You can't stop people buying the game, but a lot of people seem to be keen to specifically tell everyone that they are doing so, and also to directly argue to trans people not only why that's fine, but to also argue they should still be okay with them doing that.

 

It's a thread about the game that has become a thread about boycotting the game. There are bound to be people specifically telling everyone that they are buying the game.

 

Are you honestly saying that people shouldn't be honest enough in the thread that they are buying it? I'd much rather people were honest and engaged in a non-abusive way. Minds could still be changed. I don't see insults being thrown around between people.

[thesnwmn]

1 minute ago, Benny said:

 

I think when people in the thread are responding to criticism of the game pointedly with variations of "well, I'm still buying it, so there" - doesn't it seem obvious why?

 

You can't stop people buying the game, but a lot of people seem to be keen to specifically tell everyone that they are doing so, and also to directly argue to trans people not only why that's fine, but to also argue they should still be okay with them doing that.

 

And a lot of people feel the need to tell others that they're morally bankrupt if they think about buying it. I don't think that really anyone comes out of this thread feeling anything other than a bit dirty for contributing to this ongoing and very circular set of discusions

 

The thread is a shitshow from the perspective of knowing what the game is or will be. Better of in Off Topic than Discussion really.