Question Scrutinizing Game Products

[McStabStab]

With the release of Hogwarts Legacy we have seen and heard more disclaimers, editorials, and caveats attached or adjacent to press coverage of the game than any title I can think of that has come before it. If you have been following any news surround this game you'll know that this comes as a side effect from the IP's creator, JK Rowling, and her statements and actions in reference to the Trans community.

The question I have that follows is, why hasn't the intensity of the Hogwarts / Rowling situation been matched by consumers and journalists for other companies supported by entities that violate human rights? In the words of the statements written across websites, magazines, or spoken of in podcasts, we can't see a product or art in a vacuum. There is context to the creation of every work that we have the opportunity to support.

I'll give a few examples, but to be clear, I'm not doing this to diminish the current situation surrounding Hogwarts Legacy. I do, however, believe that not enough press and consumer voice is being directed against:

• Games from Russian developers / publishers
  • Atomic Heart is coming out this month and Russia continues its invasion of Ukraine, committing atrocious war crimes.
  • Russia bans and censors same sex relationship content in their media and games.
• Games from Chinese developers / publishers
  • China has a long list of human rights issues including the oppression of the Uighur people.
  • China bans and censors same sex relationship content in their media and games.

I understand that these are actions of nations and often not the developers / publishers themselves, however these nations profit off of the success of the companies within their borders just as JK Rowling will for the licensing rights to the Wizarding World.

If we're going to start pushing back on the entities that help produce the products we consume, where else can we start? Where do we draw the line? Am I being too general to attach nations to these discussions? Rowling is a singular voice and persona, so I understand that she is seen as a more tangible focal point.

If I'm to throw in my personal opinion for upcoming releases, I think the release of Atomic Heart should be met with some serious questions about where this game comes from and what our money will go to once we click "buy".
***EDIT: Found a Yahoo article regarding the investors for Atomic Heart***

Please feel free to add in your thoughts about the above, whether it be Rowling, Russia, or any others that you feel shouldn't be sliding by just because the product is good.

 

[DXCHASE]

Never read/watched harry potter but if i did and i liked it, regardless of what the creator has said in the past, id probably still play it. Plenty of authors out there with amazing stories but a very questionable worldview in reality. I try to think about the little guy, all the underpaid and overworked developers hopefully getting a nice bonus and able to retain their job from a successful launch.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

Just a PSA that we dont stand for hate speech in this forum, I know our regulars are all sensible that way, but a reminder to everyone coming in, any kind of bigotry will result in a ban as per forum rules.

I guess the Russian and Chinese government isn't all over Twitter with their opinions. Also there does have to be a distinction between people/developers from a country and its Government though for sure. JK is directly profiting from this game.

Having said that, Atomic Heart does sound pretty dodgy considering its funding/shareholders, its on Gamepass so the already have a good chunk of change. I see theyre based in Cyprus, but of course that doesnt mean its not funneled in the back door somehow.

I dont think theyre directly comparable. But at the end of the day, if you dont want JK Rowling to get your money don't buy that game. Same goes any other devs with shady attachments in the background I guess.

 

[ZedClampet]

With the release of Hogwarts Legacy we have seen and heard more disclaimers, editorials, and caveats attached or adjacent to press coverage of the game than any title I can think of that has come before it. If you have been following any news surround this game you'll know that this comes as a side effect from the IP's creator, JK Rowling, and her statements and actions in reference to the Trans community.

The question I have that follows is, why hasn't the intensity of the Hogwarts / Rowling situation been matched by consumers and journalists for other companies supported by entities that violate human rights? In the words of the statements written across websites, magazines, or spoken of in podcasts, we can't see a product or art in a vacuum. There is context to the creation of every work that we have the opportunity to support.

I'll give a few examples, but to be clear, I'm not doing this to diminish the current situation surrounding Hogwarts Legacy. I do, however, believe that not enough press and consumer voice is being directed against:

• Games from Russian developers / publishers
  • Atomic Heart is coming out this month and Russia continues its invasion of Ukraine, committing atrocious war crimes.
  • Russia bans and censors same sex relationship content in their media and games.
• Games from Chinese developers / publishers
  • China has a long list of human rights issues including the oppression of the Uighur people.
  • China bans and censors same sex relationship content in their media and games.

I understand that these are actions of nations and often not the developers / publishers themselves, however these nations profit off of the success of the companies within their borders just as JK Rowling will for the licensing rights to the Wizarding World.

If we're going to start pushing back on the entities that help produce the products we consume, where else can we start? Where do we draw the line? Am I being too general to attach nations to these discussions? Rowling is a singular voice and persona, so I understand that she is seen as a more tangible focal point.

If I'm to throw in my personal opinion for upcoming releases, I think the release of Atomic Heart should be met with some serious questions about where this game comes from and what our money will go to once we click "buy".
***EDIT: Found a Yahoo article regarding the investors for Atomic Heart***

Please feel free to add in your thoughts about the above, whether it be Rowling, Russia, or any others that you feel shouldn't be sliding by just because the product is good.

Rowling is an absolute menace, and she was this way even before her statements about the differences between cis-gendered women and trans women.

Here's the thing, though. As far as companies and individuals go, if I didn't buy from people/entities that I had a disagreement with, then I wouldn't be able to buy anything at all.

Countries are another matter altogether. There's only so much harm that Rowling or other celebrities can do. Most people with any sense just ignore them. But Russia and China are real threats to the world. We absolutely should be examining what they are producing and making ethical decisions. Unfortunately, nearly everything is made in China these days, which is why I think efforts in Europe and America to move manufacturing out of China are important.

 

[Brian Boru]

Just a PSA that we dont stand for hate speech in this forum, I know our regulars are all sensible that way, but a reminder to everyone coming in, any kind of bigotry will result in a ban as per forum rules.

Endorsing that. If it was my call I'd have removed the OP because of the likelihood of going off track like other political or religious topics. So please keep it calm.

if I didn't buy from people/entities that I had a disagreement with, then I wouldn't be able to buy anything at all

This is the key point. "Let him who is without sin…"

If you have an interest in history, you can discover that India and China were the world's dominant economies for ~17 of the last 20 centuries. Their downfall was when attacked and invaded by Europeans. You shouldn't be surprised that they don't have quite as sanguine a view of all that as the West does.

So the Q is, how far back do you go to select your villain of the day? 2 years? 20? 200? 2,000?

While Russia was one of the Major Powers continually jostling in Europe's almost endless wars for the last millennium, I don't recall it being invasion-happy. I do recall it being invaded seriously twice from the West. You shouldn't be surprised that they don't have quite as sanguine a view of all that as the West does.

However, an interest in history is a double-edged sword. You might discover which country has been the most warlike and invasion-happy since WW2. If your selected lens above is shorter than 200, are you going to stop buying their products? I know I'm not…

So before you cast the first stone, look around.

 

[Zloth]

Oh, this is a huuuuge topic that I think about.

...questions about where this game comes from and what our money will go to once we click "buy".

There's a big key: where our money is going. If some guy is playing the guitar with a sign that says 'need money so I can buy poison to kill my jerk girlfriend,' you're definitely going to deserve some of the blame if you hand him some cash. You can't just wash your hands of the whole thing because the sign might have been a joke.

The same thing happens, IMHO, when paying for a game (or song or movie or whatever). If you buy a game, is there a fairly high likelihood that some of your money is going to get used to do things you seriously disagree with? If not, there's probably not much to worry about. Buying that Wagner opera isn't going to help the composer in the slightest, so there's no worries about providing him the funds to further his views or any such thing.

If there is a good chance, well, then there's even more thinking to be done. Have you really got enough information to judge what's going on? Are you just picking out the bad and ignoring the good? (For instance, there might be a level designer that's doing things you don't like, but there might be two voice actors doing things you do like.) Are you just hoping there's good cancelling out something you know is going to happen and is pretty damn nasty?

Messy, messy stuff. Great for pondering in the shower. (Getting distracted and not being sure if you just got your hair wet to prep it for shampoo or if you just washed the shampoo out is a sign that you're making progress!)

 

[Zimbaly]

I think it's a personal choice. I myself avoid certain games depending who's involved, maybe who owns the ip or runs the company.

I do the same with music too. If someone seems to be a giant piece of steaming turd and smells like a fish market on a hot summer day then I will stop listening to their music. Hell I may even chuck the album in the trash.

It's all a matter of choice.

It can be painful sometimes, specially if you love something so much, like I love classic Iced Earth, specially when Steve Digiorgio was with em, but screw Jon what's his name *lol*.

There's other great content, games, movies, shows, art, music out there by less crappy human beings. No one is perfect, and sometimes we say and do stupid things, but there's a difference between having moments of stupidity and just being a bad, horrible person who doesn't grow and stands still in a world where ya think we should of grown more by now.

I love Diablo...... love it..... love.... but I hate Slobby Kodick *sorry if that broke a rule, but I couldn't resist*
And I just can't see myself buying 4, even though omg I so want to. I want to play the old Diablos, but I just can't knowing he still works there and they just swept things under the rug.

As a person who has gay, transgender, black and brown family members and friends. I just find it that much harder to support some things, and even if I didn't have those people in my life I still would feel the same, but I'm not gonna hold it against someone else if they want to play or listen to something. It doesn't mean they are hateful or bigoted. Maybe they just don't know better.

If the worse thing someone does in their life is play a game that the world/ip was created by a moron and don't support their views. Then you're probably better then half the people in the world already.

 

[Pifanjr]

I absolutely support adding more context than just the gameplay to game reviews, because I think it's important for people to know where their money is going to. Like @Zimbaly , I'm not planning on giving Activision Blizzard any more of my money based off all the shady stuff that's been going on there.

 

[Alm]

I did buy the game. I used to think Rowling was just equating trans people with people on Twitter who can be abusive, but I've since heard that she funds anti trans groups. I must admit I don't know what she has done in great detail and I'd like to know before casting judgement but it looks bad from what I have heard.

I think talking about these things is probably more effective than boycotting but I support people who want to boycott.

Edit: OK, there's a PCG article:

https://www.pcgamer.com/hogwarts-legacy-jk-rowling-trans-rights/

 

[DXCHASE]

I love Diablo...... love it..... love.... but I hate Slobby Kodick *sorry if that broke a rule, but I couldn't resist*
And I just can't see myself buying 4, even though omg I so want to. I want to play the old Diablos, but I just can't knowing he still works there and they just swept things under the rug.

I am 100% with you here. I love diablo but how blizzards top officials have been over the last few years and all the allegations and stuff makes me not want to buy D4 at its 70 price tag, something else i find hard to swallow about games these days.

This is mainly why i want this MS/ActivisionBlizzard deal to go through. I can probably stomach "supporting" acti/blizz when its games are apart of the gamepass subscription i pay for.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Haha. Wow. This is definitely a fireball topic. I'll do my part in not blowing things up. But it's already pretty obvious that only one viewpoint is welcome. The only thing I'll say about the example used is that: A) I also believe hate is wrong, and that we should love all people, whether you agree with them or not. And B) I strongly disagree with cancel culture. It's not good for the mobs to completely destroy someone's life just because they disagree with them. Believe it or not, no matter where you stand on anything, there are going to be masses of people who disagree with you. We don't need to just destroy everyone's lives just because a bunch of people disagree. Remember the beginning point that we need to strive for love and reconciliation, and not hate. I'll leave it at that.

Here's the thing, though. As far as companies and individuals go, if I didn't buy from people/entities that I had a disagreement with, then I wouldn't be able to buy anything at all.

This right here is the truth. If you base all of your purchases on activism, you won't buy anything at all, because there is nobody out there that you will 100% agree with on everything.

 

[ZedClampet]

So before you cast the first stone, look around.

We're going to have a difference of opinion on some of these things, which is fine, because I think you are lacking context. All of history requires context.

 

[McStabStab]

Great additions from everyone contributing to this thread, I appreciate that it has remained civil. It's becoming clear that this topic has been on the collective minds of gamers as seen in the comment sections of the Atomic Heart articles I've been reading as well as on Reddit and other social platforms. Much like Hogwarts Legacy, if you search for the game's title the results are coming up with more headlines focusing on issues adjacent to the project.

I feel that something has to give way eventually. I'll be surprised if there isn't a bigger uproar as we approach the release date.

 

[Zloth]

I do the same with music too. If someone seems to be a giant piece of steaming turd and smells like a fish market on a hot summer day then I will stop listening to their music. Hell I may even chuck the album in the trash.

Time can make that a really harsh thing. You might find bits and pieces of 'modern sensibilities' in various cultures back through time, but I expect you'll find something really awful about any artist from 2 or more centuries back.

It's not good for the mobs to completely destroy someone's life just because they disagree with them. Believe it or not, no matter where you stand on anything, there are going to be masses of people who disagree with you.

It's not good for mobs to destroy someone's life, period. That kind of stuff is terrible. We're just talking about refusing to buy products, though.

"Disagree".... Hmmm... Say some guy writes a book completely by himself, without so much as an editor, and it's great. Soon after writing the book, he's arrested, tried, and put in jail for issuing death threats at a whole bunch of people he doesn't like. He's not even remotely repentant, either, cheering on people who do likewise from his jail cell. The book doesn't have any propaganda in it, nor any hint that he thinks death threats are a good idea.

So do you buy that book? Because if you do (and if I'm remembering the legal ramifications right, which I very well may not be), a large hunk of the money you spend on that book is going to end up in his pocket once the jail time is over.

That's just a point on the spectrum, of course. The author's threat to society can be dialed up and down. The big question to struggle with is where on the spectrum do you stop buying the book? Too permissive and you're helping something you see as evil spread. Too strict, and you're fostering an intolerant society that won't be able to function. The goldilocks zone is somewhere between, but where?

 

[Pifanjr]

Time can make that a really harsh thing. You might find bits and pieces of 'modern sensibilities' in various cultures back through time, but I expect you'll find something really awful about any artist from 2 or more centuries back.
It's not good for mobs to destroy someone's life, period. That kind of stuff is terrible. We're just talking about refusing to buy products, though.

"Disagree".... Hmmm... Say some guy writes a book completely by himself, without so much as an editor, and it's great. Soon after writing the book, he's arrested, tried, and put in jail for issuing death threats at a whole bunch of people he doesn't like. He's not even remotely repentant, either, cheering on people who do likewise from his jail cell. The book doesn't have any propaganda in it, nor any hint that he thinks death threats are a good idea.

So do you buy that book? Because if you do (and if I'm remembering the legal ramifications right, which I very well may not be), a large hunk of the money you spend on that book is going to end up in his pocket once the jail time is over.

That's just a point on the spectrum, of course. The author's threat to society can be dialed up and down. The big question to struggle with is where on the spectrum do you stop buying the book? Too permissive and you're helping something you see as evil spread. Too strict, and you're fostering an intolerant society that won't be able to function. The goldilocks zone is somewhere between, but where?

Another reason why being a patient gamer (or consumer of other media) is better. You can enjoy media from terrible people without worrying about them getting any money from it

 

[Frindis]

I remember watching a popular YouTube channel some time ago and then the creator got into some shady stuff and was on his way to a possible prison sentence. He still uploaded but I decided I did not want to support him anymore until all facts were on the table.

A lot of animals are treated badly in the food industry and often pigs are brought up as an example of this. I try to eat less meat because I believe it matters, but at the same time, I can also enjoy a spicy sausage when I get the craving for one.

Activision Blizzard has done a lot of dumb stuff over the last few years and I don't want to support the company economically before it manages to redeem itself in some areas. I also don't want to stop playing Warzone as long as my nephews play it, because that means I would miss a lot of fun moments with them, and I value that more than completely boycotting the company.

What is right or wrong for me? I'm the one that decides, not a group of activists throwing milk at paintings, chaining themselves to a pig farm, or attacking people for streaming Hogwarts Legacy.

 

[SWard]

Just popping in to say glad you're keeping things civil here folks. It's very hard to have these sort of discussions, so it's comforting to see well thought out points, and rule adhering happening here. Keep keeping this community as awesome as it is, and if you're unsure on anything, the mods are around to clarify.