It should be noted, JK doesn't just "hold transphobic views," she augments their voices, supports them, emboldens them, and in many ways even leads them, so, you know, it's not like this is the "one trip up" boogetyman the far right loves and gets other people to parrot:
I don't have an illusions that she has horrible views and uses her power to amplify them. I have issues accepting that if I buy one game based on her imaginary world that I am no longer an ally of the LGBTQ community and should expect to be alienated by that community.
Boy, I hope this train doesn't go to Cleveland.
This went over my head and Google is no help. Someone want to let me in on the joke, by DM if it's not appropriate for the thread?
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.
Ironically, early on in her unveiling, JK tweeted that "If you were oppressed, I'd march with you, but {a bunch of transphobia}," which was obviously untrue. She and her allies in the UK government are now blocking a Scottish bill with, it should be noted, wide popular support regarding gender identification, so. It's a smarmy deflection that doesn't help.
I don't have an illusions that she has horrible views and uses her power to amplify them. I have issues accepting that if I buy one game based on her imaginary world that I am no longer an ally of the LGBTQ community and should expect to be alienated by that community.
Dawg, do you actually want to buy it? Seems like everyone has been adamant they don't, and if so, who the f*ck cares what others will think of an act you don't even plan on making?
You were the one who mentioned voting
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.
Nobody knows what you do in the voting booth, but if your Steam/PS/XBox profile says "44 Hours in Hogwarts Legacy," why should they trust what you do in the voting booth? And if you sit back and breathe easier because nobody is holding you to your principles, were they ever principles in the first place?
If you are equating "don't buy this video game made by a sh*tty person using an IP created by a sh*tty person" with perfection... That's not something that I can correct. If the larger LGBTQ+ community backs an action or a policy and it doesn't align with what you believe, why are you worried about what the larger LGBTQ+ community thinks of you at all? Vote the way you believe. Just don't expect us to say "thanks" when you ignore us.
*Legion* wrote:Boy, I hope this train doesn't go to Cleveland.
This went over my head and Google is no help. Someone want to let me in on the joke, by DM if it's not appropriate for the thread?
The old Politics and Controversy (now Debated and Discussions) section of the forums was nicknamed Cleveland. Saying a topic is heading to Cleveland is thus a reference that the thread’s discussion is headed towards topics that are better discussed in that forum section.
Also a hint that the topic is heading towards a point where a mid may be required to step in.
It originated with a bit on the podcast, actually. I think Elysium was talking about someone PMing him, complaining about a thread in the old P&C section, and Elysium was making fun of the complaint because the person who complained was actively making the issue worse. The joke was that Elysium equated the person complaining with someone who deliberately boards a train to Cleveland and then says loudly, "Boy, I sure hope this train isn't going to Cleveland."
Thanks for the background. That musta been before my time.
Thanks for the Cleveland clarification, everyone.
I don't have an illusions that she has horrible views and uses her power to amplify them. I have issues accepting that if I buy one game based on her imaginary world that I am no longer an ally of the LGBTQ community and should expect to be alienated by that community.
The thing about the "ally" label is that you don't get to self-apply it. You can decide that you disagree with LGBTQ people (either individually or as a community) about the standards they use for applying it, but end of the day that's their call to make.
Sometimes the person who cares more gets their way, even if they're wrong. I don't have a strong opinion about whether buying the latest Harry Potter thing is crossing a moral line... so I'll go ahead and defer to those who do.
And even if I did have a strong opinion that it's 100% okay, I'd still strongly consider deferring anyway, because if I do and I was right that it would've been okay, then worst case scenario oh well, I missed out on a good game out of the dozens that come out every week. Whereas if I buy the game and I'm wrong, I'm the asshole.
There's also the matter of whose opinion you care about. I've given up on being a good ally to "the LGBTQ community." And no offense to Staygold or NSMike or anyone else here who is vociferously opposed to supporting the latest Harry Potter thing, but to me you guys are just screen names and avatars and occasionally voices on the mic in Overwatch back when I was playing that game. If you were to decide I'm not a good ally, I'd consider your point of view, but ultimately I wouldn't lose much sleep.
But there are LGBTQ people in non-Internet-forum portions of my life whose good opinion of me matters very much to me, and if I had any interest in the latest Harry Potter thing, I'd very much want to get their take on it first. But even if their take was "go for it, I don't give a sh*t," that's not a permission slip that's valid anywhere else.
I don't have an illusions that she has horrible views and uses her power to amplify them. I have issues accepting that if I buy one game based on her imaginary world that I am no longer an ally of the LGBTQ community and should expect to be alienated by that community.
You feel like you should have control of what others do in reaction to your choices?? You obviously know the world doesn't work like that.
Nobody knows what you do in the voting booth, but if your Steam/PS/XBox profile says "44 Hours in Hogwarts Legacy," why should they trust what you do in the voting booth?
This is something interesting about the modern world. Obviously what I do in the voting booth is more important that what video games I play but it is also less. It feels like a weird swapping.
If the larger LGBTQ+ community backs an action or a policy and it doesn't align with what you believe, why are you worried about what the larger LGBTQ+ community thinks of you at all? Vote the way you believe. Just don't expect us to say "thanks" when you ignore us.
This resonates to me. Not sure what exactly it is saying but I want to think about it more.
You feel like you should have control of what others do in reaction to your choices?? You obviously know the world doesn't work like that.
I do not feel I should have control - I just feel like I can talk about it on a Internet forum 
Farley if someone saw you played a bunch of hours in this game and called you out on it for supporting a TERF/bigot/racist, how would you respond to that person? I think it's your reaction at that point that determines whether you are still seen as an ally, not whether you purchased it in the first place (regardless of what you knew before purchasing it).
Honest question - I knew nothing about Justin Roiland and have actually never seen an episode of Rick and Morty - what's the verdict on playing High on Life(noting that he is no longer with the company)?
Let me save you the bother, Sally, skip it. Not because of Roiland, just cos it's mediocre and your gaming time is better spent elsewhere.
Jon, you have seen my gamercard. Mediocrity is kinda my sweet spot:)
Jon, you have seen my gamercard. Mediocrity is kinda my sweet spot:)
Sorry, forgot who I was talking to.
What's your opinion on 15 hours of non-stop dick jokes?
Honest question - I knew nothing about Justin Roiland and have actually never seen an episode of Rick and Morty - what's the verdict on playing High on Life(noting that he is no longer with the company)?
He's resigned as CEO, but as far as I can tell, there's been no change in his stake of ownership of the company. The success of the game is still going to be putting money in his pocket, I'd assume.
Interesting comment by Bank of America on Hasbro with respect to Wizards of the Coast
Hasbro 'continues to destroy customer goodwill' and the stock could crash 29% as it dilutes the value of Magic: The Gathering, Bank of America says
...
Within its Wizards segment, Hasbro continues to destroy customer goodwill by trying to over-monetize its brands
...
Mainly, Hasbro is attempting to squeeze out as much profit as possible from its Wizards products in the short-term without any thought as to the long-term durability of its brands. And the over monetization is irking customers, according to BofA."We remain especially cautious on Hasbro's Wizards segment given its over-monetization of Magic. Wizards recently tried a similar tactic with D&D-proposing changes to its licensing agreement which led to substantial pushback from the community including calls to boycott the D&D movie," BofA explained.
...
The snafu by Hasbro validates BofA's view that management at the toy company remains willing to risk customer loyalty for short-term profit.
Bank of America: "And we know a thing or two about destroying customer goodwill."
BofA Spokesperson, D&D fan: "Dont f*ck with my game. I can hurt you"
I think this is the right thread for this:
DoubleFine have released the 32 episode documentary about the development of Psychonauts 2.
There's a lot of fascinating stuff about the genesis of various elements within the game, but for me as a coding manager, the really interesting stuff was the people drama: how intelligent, professional people can just not work well together, and it can be nobody's fault really.
They also seem to burn out their programmers like anything. There's a very interesting (and emotional) discussion about crunch culture. It doesn't provide any answers, and I don't work in the games industry, so it doesn't directly apply to my kind of work, but it gave me lots to think about. For me, even though DF have a stated goal of being against crunch, everything they do or say (fixed deadlines, chasing a "perfect" artistic vision with a small team) seems to lead to it.
To the surprise of nobody in the games business
There's definitely benefit for 1st party and 3rd party library titles, but if you're 3rd party launching a new title unless MS is paying you 10s of millions of dollars, you're better off launching at full price and discounting it 20% in a few weeks, to catch a 2nd wave versus hoping Gamepass will be a better solution.
Is the future of GamePass to have older games? That's what Netflix did so well at first, offering hard to find stuff that wasn't readily available in hard copy or on regular television.
Seems like the financials may not work so well unless Microsoft is producing the content?
To the surprise of nobody in the games business
There's definitely benefit for 1st party and 3rd party library titles, but if you're 3rd party launching a new title unless MS is paying you 10s of millions of dollars, you're better off launching at full price and discounting it 20% in a few weeks, to catch a 2nd wave versus hoping Gamepass will be a better solution.
Depends.
Going the Game Pass route gives you guaranteed income.
Launching on Steam and hoping for the best doesn't help if your game gets lost in the maelstrom and doesn't get any traction. Riskier, and mayberewardier.
I think it has to be. The cost to develop a AAA game is just too much to justify not getting a $60-$70 price tag at least for the first wave of customers. You can play the steam discount game all the way down to like 80% off and I'm pretty sure you still make more money than having whatever portion of the monthly fee that the 1st party gives you.
Once a game is like a year+ old, sure, you'll take any combination of discounts, gamespass, whatever to basically make free money, but I have no idea how you justify a $150M-$200M dev budget and not make full price on at least the first month or so of sales.
Launching on Steam and hoping for the best doesn't help if your game gets lost in the maelstrom and doesn't get any traction. Riskier, and mayberewardier.
For a AAA title, no one is hoping for the best.. you are assuming the best. A guaranteed $80M with limited upside does you no good if your game costs $100M to make. Worst case you throw it onto game pass after 3 months, but I still argue that a 50% discount 1-month after a disappointing full price release is still a better proposition than launching on Gamespass (see Marvel Midnight Suns).
I mean sure, that argument might hold for a AAA release with a huge marketing budget that will ensure visibility, but that ain't most games.
So Microsoft gobbling up AAA studios and putting their titles on GamePass day-and-date isn't anti-competitive at all.
Got it.
Sorry did this turn from is it profitable to is it anti-competitive?
For a AAA title, no one is hoping for the best.. you are assuming the best. A guaranteed $80M with limited upside does you no good if your game costs $100M to make. Worst case you throw it onto game pass after 3 months, but I still argue that a 50% discount 1-month after a disappointing full price release is still a better proposition than launching on Gamespass (see Marvel Midnight Suns).
You say developers assume the best then say that a guarantee isn't as good?
I guess if you sold your funders on an assumption then yes a guarantee isn't going to cut it but that is you BS your investors.
Pages