The Great Video Game Business and Financial (In)Stability Thread

This thread also has an incredibly weird problem with people insisting they aren't defending something obviously bad, and yet defending the obviously bad thing with the tenacity of an attack dog. Hardly alone in that, but I understand why some people would be incredibly frustrated with the monotony and repetitiveness of having the same tired questions just being asked and then getting tone policed, because a lot of this conversation is quite, quite old. Lindsay Ellis put out a video discussing how the JK issue is thornier that figures such as Walt Disney, and has since had the time to retire and unretire from video making, yet these questions are posed here, and clearly they're very tired of justifying this over and over again to, frankly, people who don't seem to have fully understood the issue before chiming in.

fenomas wrote:

My view on game boycotts was transformed some years ago when I read an article about an indie game where

I cannot imagine a more polar opposite to an indie game than a HP Branded game. It's a Warner Discovery property.

Rat Boy wrote:

Perhaps maybe someone can talk me through this, the lone neophyte to the Harry Potter world; never read one of the books, never saw one of the films. What is it about this franchise makes it worth trying to go through all these mental gymnastics to keep espousing its greatness versus the hatred espoused by its creator?

Story-wise it's basically Stars Wars but magic instead of the Force. On a macro level, the world is neat which is probably the main appeal of the game. The problems are mostly in the minutia but the target audience tends to be too naive to pick up on it. Like, most people that were reading the books when they came out were too young and white to realize that naming the only Asian character Cho Chang is pretty f*cked up.

And JK hasn't done those problems any favors by tweeting out weird stuff about how wizards used to sh*t on the floor, and how there was totally a Jewish student that just so happened to never be relevant or be mentioned in any of the 7 books, and the like.

This is not an attempt to change the subject but I do think this fits here. The new PMG video about Valve's organizational structure and its consequences is absolutely worth a watch.

SpacePProtean wrote:

and yet defending the obviously bad thing with the tenacity of an attack dog.

Accusing people of holding a position they already said they don't hold adds nothing to any conversation. For my part, I already said why I'm leery of game boycotts - I think they often don't hurt the party we want them to hurt, or help the party we want them to help. There are no other secret reasons.

That said, I think the strongest argument for a boycott is publicizing the author's views and sending a message to corporations not to work with creeps - and as such, having a big boisterous debate about a boycott is an unmitigated good thing, as it accomplishes those same ends. But if someone of the HP generation decides to buy the game I would absolutely not shame them over it - disagreeing about the necessity or the effectiveness of a boycott is not the same thing as disagreeing with the goals of the boycott.

I’ve decided not to expose my daughter to Harry Potter based on the author’s actions and what has been said about the content. If she does find it on her own then I suppose it will be time for a discussion.

staygold wrote:

"if you choose to purchase, talk about, and support the work" you are making a statement to the transgender community that you do not fully support their dignity and rights.

Does that make you a transphobe? No. Does that make you an ally? Definitely no.

This.

farley3k wrote:

This article kind of shows how the game will be being treated good/bad/otherwise.

Link not working. (At least not for me)

Can you point us to the article farle3k?

-----EDIT-----

Found it.

Link to Kotaku article.

Rat Boy wrote:

Perhaps maybe someone can talk me through this, the lone neophyte to the Harry Potter world; never read one of the books, never saw one of the films. What is it about this franchise makes it worth trying to go through all these mental gymnastics to keep espousing its greatness versus the hatred espoused by its creator?

The story is nothing new. Outsider marked by the big bad evil guy and who manages to overcome and beat him at the end. But, as the father of kids and the husband to a teacher, it came out in just the right time to be really, really popular. And a lot of people really like it.

And what happens often is that people get so invested in it (and thus, by extension, JKR) that any criticism of her they see as direct criticism of them. Call her a TERF, it means her books support TERFism, and thus they feel that by them enjoying the books, they see them as being called a TERF as well.

It's adjacent to the whole "if you have 10 people eating a friendly meal with a nazi, there are actually 11 nazis sitting at the table" point of view.

Someone pointed out that JKR tried to retcon Hermione as a black person (in so far casting a black actresses to portray her on stage) the pathetic thing though is if you take her at face value and imagine Hermione as a black person then in the books and world she is literally the magical negro trope... its just awful all the way down with JKR.

JKR is awful, and that should be good enough reason not to buy Hogwarts Legacy.

The other reason is that the storyline was written by a racist, and the plot is basically about fighting a war to subjugate Rowling's Jewish caricatures and keep them in line.

Don't buy the game.

As far as why people are doing mental gymnastics to keep loving Harry Potter, it's the same reason anyone makes justifications for books or movies they love - sentiment. So many Harry Potter fans read the books as they came out when they were kids, and there was nothing complicated about the Harry Potter world to them, or about J.K. Rowling.

Hell, if they were like me when I was reading books as a kid, the author's name might as well have been literally anything for all it mattered beyond branding. I didn't, and still don't, know who the f*ck R.L. Stine or Raymond E. Feist are as people. The fact that we know anything at all about Rowling's political and social opinions (beyond what can be inferred from her work) is a relatively new phenomenon.

I do appreciate the discussion and thoughtful comments

Going back to Farley's original issue:

farley3k wrote:

I guess this goes here because it is about the business of gaming.

I just tried to post a couple videos about Hogwarts Legacy on Reddit and the post was instantly removed. I messaged the mods and "Yes, it is temporarily banned here too. We kept on being brigaded."

LeapingGnome wrote:

I think what you are talking about Farley is less about a personal choice of should I purchase this or not, and more about trying to force that personal choice onto other people? Like the original example of you couldn't post about this game on Reddit because other people were trying to force their choice of not buying it onto the other people using that subreddit.

I think there's a gap between "we, the mods of this subreddit, do not support this game because of its associations; we are also taking the step of disallowing discussion of the game here" and "[forcing] that personal choice onto other people."

They can't stop you from purchasing the game. They can't stop you from discussing the game elsewhere. Those are your personal choices. If they choose to make a display of distancing themselves from Rowling's very public anti-trans statements by disallowing discussion of the latest high-profile project connected with her work on the very small corner of the Internet that they moderate-- and without, as far as I can tell, castigating you or making moral judgments against you-- it seems to me that that, too, is their personal choice.

I think they ban discussion because it creates a headache for moderation - lots of fights they have to referee, lots of inappropriate comment's to be deleted, etc. I don't think they are banning it because they are making a choice to distance themselves from her comments. I could be wrong but I think it is about knowing that the discussion won't be about the game but instead about attacking the posters for their lack understanding for the issue.

It's Reddit.

As a mod on a subreddit, I can guarantee that opening up subreddit to allow discussion on this would turn the subreddit into a nuclear wasteland and would cause the mods, all of whom are volunteers, to end up being completely overworked.

Things are different in every community, but in my experience it tends to go less "attacking the posters for their lack understanding for the issue" and more like:

Poster A: Says something relatively innocuous about the game, totally unconnected to JKR's bullsh*t.

Poster B: Says something relatively polite and respectful like, "Hey man, you might not be aware that JKR is more than a bit of a transphobic bigot, a lot of folks are avoiding the game for that reason, might be something for you to look into."

Then Poster B gets dogpiled by an army of alt-right sock puppets dropping enough dog whistles to deafen Lassie, hence the worry about brigading.

So if their only concern is avoiding that last bit, I don't blame them for it either.

staygold wrote:

To me this falls squarely in the category of: "if you choose to purchase, talk about, and support the work" you are making a statement to the transgender community that you do not fully support their dignity and rights.

Does that make you a transphobe? No. Does that make you an ally? Definitely no. Can you do something that will set your moral equilibrium at ease? Kind of. Donate to the Trevor Project (or your local equivalent) the cost of what you purchased the game for. If your child loves the series and thinks the world of some of the positive role models in the book, that's awesome! But also consider using your privilege to educate and share, when and where appropriate, the issues and implications written into the story (the overt fascism, transphobia, homophobia, token black, Jewish, and Asian characters). That's where you can start fostering a critical examination of art/literature at a young age through nuanced discussion.

JFC, Staygold, that's hella circular firing squad you've got there.

All things are not equal in the world of being an ally. Being able to separate the art from the artist (and yes, the art is also problematic, but not anything like to the same degree as the artist) is the smallest of beans compared to the things you go on proposing provide some kind of moral equivalence.

If you think that letting your kid enjoy some mildly problematic fiction is balanced by supporting trans charities and teaching that kid how to not be a sh*tty person, your moral scale is in serious need of calibration.

Being an ally is about knowing what the big rocks are, and leaning hard on them. Vote left, support queer-aligned charities, treat everyone you meet with the same dignity and respect, hire trans/queer folks when they're the most qualified candidates and insist your bosses do the same, and raise your kids to do all of the above. What media you quietly enjoy in the privacy of your own home is on that list, but it's waaaaaaay down there.

Allyship starts from one place that matters and one place only: listening to the people you're trying to be an ally of.

If they tell you, "Don't buy the game," and you say, "but..." you've lost your ally badge.

So who speaks for these folks? If a trans friend says "stop worrying about it, enjoy the game but hate JK" but a bunch of random folks on Reddit say I should boycott it who do I follow?

I mean one of the themes behind much of this is that we can't treat groups as monolithic and lump them all together but we should about LGBTQ feelings on Harry Potter?

And another thought since I was just in the HBO Max thread - should there be boycotts of all their stuff since they own Harry Potter now (or at least the movies and they are publishing the game)?

NSMike wrote:

Allyship starts from one place that matters and one place only: listening to the people you're trying to be an ally of.

If they tell you, "Don't buy the game," and you say, "but..." you've lost your ally badge.

Jonman wrote:

What media you quietly enjoy in the privacy of your own home is on that list, but it's waaaaaaay down there.

You know why that's low down on the list? Because it's performative allyship. It helps no-one in any real, tangible way. Focus on the big rocks that aren't performative.

Like, come on Michael, if you were advising me on how to be supportive of the gay community, would you suggest I donate money to your preferred gay rights charity, or scour my bookshelf at home to make myself feel better?

The LGBTQ+ community at large is well behind boycotting the game. If you can swallow playing it because you have a trans friend who validates you and that matters more, I can't stop you. But that's not the move an ally would make.

And the larger LGBTQ+ community is too small to have enough power to enforce change anywhere, which is why we need allies. Which is why people going against the boycott aren't allies.

I know commercial boycotts are basically ineffective these days, but that's only because there hasn't been one that could force a large enough collective action to matter. And there won't be with anything Harry Potter related, either, because people want their entertainment more than they care about actually standing on principle, or believe that they can make a difference through voting with their wallets. If you want to address something circular, address that - "boycotts don't work because everyone keeps buying it anyway, so I'm gonna buy it, too."

Principles aren't conveniences. And if allyship is something you claim as a principle, but you give JKR money, then it really isn't.

Call it performative if you want, but this just lines up with everyone calling "virtue signaling" a bad thing. We virtue signal all the time, and it's not bad. It's a key component of communicating our values. And if I see Hogwarts Legacy on your PS+/XBox/Steam activity feed, you sure have communicated something.

NSMike wrote:

Call it performative if you want, but this just lines up with everyone calling "virtue signaling" a bad thing. We virtue signal all the time, and it's not bad. It's a key component of communicating our values.

I'm agreeing with you, and saying that we can and should also signal those virtues with much louder, not only performative, bullhorns.

Jonman wrote:

Like, come on Michael, if you were advising me on how to be supportive of the gay community, would you suggest I donate money to your preferred gay rights charity, or scour my bookshelf at home to make myself feel better?

I'm not saying that you need to scour your bookshelf - please remember we're talking about a video game that releases in 15 days, not media you purchased in the past. I still have copies of the Harry Potter books on my kindle. I don't have plans to delete them, either.

I'm also telling you that the larger LGBTQ+ community is behind the boycott. Call it performative and small, but if it's publicly obvious that you bought the game, don't expect not to feel alienated by the community you betrayed, even if you vote in all the right ways.

If you keep it hidden that you bought it, of course the only person you have to reckon with is yourself. And if you can live with that, why do you care what I, or the community, think?

You may think it's low down on the list, but it isn't if you start with an action that shows you can't be trusted as an ally, especially with something as small as a video game purchase.

First off, I appreciate you sharing your perspective. Having these conversations is important.

NSMike wrote:

You may think it's low down on the list, but it isn't if you start with an action that shows you can't be trusted as an ally, especially with something as small as a video game purchase.

But your closing statement just brings me back to the circular firing squad.

If you can't be trusted not to buy what amounts to a Harry Potter-skinned version of every open-world AAA clear-the-map game made since the first Assassin's Creed with racist undertones and a troubled creator with clear anti-LGBTQ+ views, why should I trust what you do on a secret ballot?

Or at any time when the stakes are bigger than your wallet being $70 lighter?

I don't know how else to express the magnitude of the non-equivalence of those actions.

For the record, I hadn't given much thought whether to buy the game for my kid coming into this thread and y'all have helped me get to "no", but the fact that you'd jump from a single purchasing decision with no context to "liable to vote for right wing nutjobs" is pretty wild.

Boy, I hope this train doesn't go to Cleveland.

That's not what I said at all. First off, there's more on a ballot than whether or not you vote for Republicans, including ballot measures, or whether you actually show up to vote at all.

The only thing that I'm saying is that by stating "I'm an ally," but going on to buy the game demonstrates that you're failing at the first step of being a good ally: listening. If someone doesn't trust your allyship after that, and you respond defensively because you're not being trusted, you're the only person to blame.

The leap to actively voting for Republicans is one you made in your head.

*Legion* wrote:

Boy, I hope this train doesn't go to Cleveland.

~mod note~

I agree.

mudbunny

NSMike wrote:

The leap to actively voting for Republicans is one you made in your head.

You were the one who mentioned voting

NSMike wrote:

if it's publicly obvious that you bought the game, don't expect not to feel alienated by the community you betrayed, even if you vote in all the right ways.

So I can competely understand where Jonman made the leap

Jonman wrote:

the fact that you'd jump from a single purchasing decision with no context to "liable to vote for right wing nutjobs" is pretty wild.

I do have to say this "even if you vote in all the right ways" thing is why I so often leave these communities. I can do 99 things right but if I cross the line once I am horrible and evil and should expect to "feel alienated by the community"

It is their bar to set but perfection is not an ability I have so I am out, I guess. And it feels relaxing - I don't have to scrutinize every possible action with a magnifying glass. I can do my best and be happy with that.
Sadly knowing that for many that makes me the enemy. I am sorry but it is livable.