GRcade

Parksey wrote:And it's not necessarily about denting JK's wealth. She's set up for at least a dozen lifetimes and that wealth was made at a different time, so there's no taking that off her. What people can do is say, "the person behind all this has shitty views, and while she propogages these shitty views, I'm staying clear".

Yeah, this. I don't think the effectiveness of this protest - which is essentially a bunch of gamers saying "I'm not buying this video game because J.K. Rowling is awful" - is necessarily contingent on causing the game to become an abject failure. It would be a success to co-opt some of the pre-existing publicity surrounding the game and utilise it to talk about trans rights in a visible way. Maybe some mainstream articles that would have said "New Harry Potter game launches" will now say "New Harry Potter game launches amidst trans rights protests", or maybe some of us will have conversations with our mates that we wouldn't have otherwise had.

It's probably not going to be the most effective protest in the history of social justice which is why I think it should be emphasised that this is a "least you can do" kind of action. Everyone should be visibly talking about how they are not buying this game on account of its association with a vicious bigot, because it's really easy to not buy a game then talk about why you didn't buy it.

It might only be a small fraction of the organisation and passion we will need to combat the rising tide of bigotry and fascism but it is a start. Even if it only wakes a handful of people up to the growing attacks on trans people and their fundamental rights currently happening in the UK then you can build on that.

Karl_ wrote:

Parksey wrote:And it's not necessarily about denting JK's wealth. She's set up for at least a dozen lifetimes and that wealth was made at a different time, so there's no taking that off her. What people can do is say, "the person behind all this has shitty views, and while she propogages these shitty views, I'm staying clear".

Yeah, this. I don't think the effectiveness of this protest - which is essentially a bunch of gamers saying "I'm not buying this video game because J.K. Rowling is awful" - is necessarily contingent on causing the game to become an abject failure. It would be a success to co-opt some of the pre-existing publicity surrounding the game and utilise it to talk about trans rights in a visible way. Maybe some mainstream articles that would have said "New Harry Potter game launches" will now say "New Harry Potter game launches amidst trans rights protests", or maybe some of us will have conversations with our mates that we wouldn't have otherwise had.

It's probably not going to be the most effective protest in the history of social justice which is why I think it should be emphasised that this is a "least you can do" kind of action. Everyone should be visibly talking about how they are not buying this game on account of its association with a vicious bigot, because it's really easy to not buy a game then talk about why you didn't buy it.

It might only be a small fraction of the organisation and passion we will need to combat the rising tide of bigotry and fascism but it is a start. Even if it only wakes a handful of people up to the growing attacks on trans people and their fundamental rights currently happening in the UK then you can build on that.

I think that's fair, and a good argument.

Rocsteady wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:The strongest argument is around ineffectiveness, isn't it.

With all the folk on here and elsewhere saying they'll boycott - do any of us doubt this will land at number 1?

It'll definitely be number one and sell by the bucketload.

Lots of things with shitty and hate-filled creators do.

Surely that points towards my third paragraph being more relevant then?

(Or something similar, I'm not well versed in this specific topic. But you get the jist.)

Yes, but it's bloody hard for ordinary people to start huge campaigns or get a celebrity endorsement.

It's piss easy to not buy a game.

Hopefully annoying twats like us moaning all over the internet helps it pick up some traction. Rowling's tweets or tweets about her usually have pro-trans rights replies. If the same is happening on gaming forums, then there's a chance the word will spread about the sort of person Rowling is.

My kids are nuts about Harry Potter so they’ve ask for it for Christmas. I will be waiting for reviews, and I don’t expect anything better than a 7 to see if it is worth £50-70. To them, Harry Potter is bigger than a bigoted woman who created the world.

Asking reviewers to boycott reviews isn’t going to solve the problem.

I will be making a donation to trans rights charity. WB may need to donate a % of sales towards a trans rights charity would be the right way to show that they disagree with Rowling’s views.

That’s my two cents. I don’t give a damn what you think of my decision. So protest all you want.

Wedgie wrote:That’s my two cents. I don’t give a damn what you think of my decision. So protest all you want.

I wish you had made that clear earlier.

I'm of the mindset that if governments, those who are in positions of genuine power - and therefore could enact more change in a month than we can in 10 years - aren't doing all they can to make the world a better place, then why should ordinary people be judged for choosing their battles?

Yubel wrote:I'm of the mindset that if governments, those who are in positions of genuine power - and therefore could enact more change in a month than we can in 10 years - aren't doing all they can to make the world a better place, then why should ordinary people be judged for choosing their battles?

If people don't do anything then what will ever inspire a government to change?

Wedgie wrote:Asking reviewers to boycott reviews isn’t going to solve the problem.

It won't solve the problem, but it would create a discussion about these issues. Making people aware of JK Rowling's abhorrent views (which seem to go mostly unreported) would be a great start.

Yubel wrote:I'm of the mindset that if governments, those who are in positions of genuine power - and therefore could enact more change in a month than we can in 10 years - aren't doing all they can to make the world a better place, then why should ordinary people be judged for choosing their battles?

Have you seen our current government?

Yubel wrote:I'm of the mindset that if governments, those who are in positions of genuine power - and therefore could enact more change in a month than we can in 10 years - aren't doing all they can to make the world a better place, then why should ordinary people be judged for choosing their battles?

What a ridiculous take.

Moggy wrote:

Fade wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

more heat than light wrote:Thing is, reviewers can actually do some good here. It's be nice if a few of them made a combined stand and 0/10 rated the game. That'd crash the Metascore and certainly have an impact in sales.

I think that really would be unfair on the developers if they do a good job and get a 20% average score or whatever. Most buyers of this will be doing it on the HP name and the marketing I'd imagine, rather than Eurogamer's review

Exactly, this isn't a black and white issue.

Let's say people do successfully boycott the game and tank it's sales, the studio gets shut down and hundreds of people lose their jobs.

Cool I guess? You've made an insignificant dent in a woman's wealth at the cost of hundreds of people's jobs and wellbeing.

Also, this game has clearly been in development way before JK made those horrible remarks.

It's a tricky situation

It's not that tricky is it?

If you want to buy the game, nobody is stopping you.

If you don't want to buy the game, then don't.

The idea that you can't boycott because it might harm "hundreds of jobs" is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that, I just think it's an interesting situation in terms of the morality of it all.

Glad I can always count on you to over simplify everything though

Yubel wrote:I'm of the mindset that if governments, those who are in positions of genuine power - and therefore could enact more change in a month than we can in 10 years - aren't doing all they can to make the world a better place, then why should ordinary people be judged for choosing their battles?

This is why I dont recycle.

Fade wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Fade wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

more heat than light wrote:Thing is, reviewers can actually do some good here. It's be nice if a few of them made a combined stand and 0/10 rated the game. That'd crash the Metascore and certainly have an impact in sales.

I think that really would be unfair on the developers if they do a good job and get a 20% average score or whatever. Most buyers of this will be doing it on the HP name and the marketing I'd imagine, rather than Eurogamer's review

Exactly, this isn't a black and white issue.

Let's say people do successfully boycott the game and tank it's sales, the studio gets shut down and hundreds of people lose their jobs.

Cool I guess? You've made an insignificant dent in a woman's wealth at the cost of hundreds of people's jobs and wellbeing.

Also, this game has clearly been in development way before JK made those horrible remarks.

It's a tricky situation

It's not that tricky is it?

If you want to buy the game, nobody is stopping you.

If you don't want to buy the game, then don't.

The idea that you can't boycott because it might harm "hundreds of jobs" is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that, I just think it's an interesting situation in terms of the morality of it all.

Glad I can always count on you to over simplify everything though

No problem, you always seem so confused by simple things that it's hard not to try and explain them to you.

Fade wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Fade wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

more heat than light wrote:Thing is, reviewers can actually do some good here. It's be nice if a few of them made a combined stand and 0/10 rated the game. That'd crash the Metascore and certainly have an impact in sales.

I think that really would be unfair on the developers if they do a good job and get a 20% average score or whatever. Most buyers of this will be doing it on the HP name and the marketing I'd imagine, rather than Eurogamer's review

Exactly, this isn't a black and white issue.

Let's say people do successfully boycott the game and tank it's sales, the studio gets shut down and hundreds of people lose their jobs.

Cool I guess? You've made an insignificant dent in a woman's wealth at the cost of hundreds of people's jobs and wellbeing.

Also, this game has clearly been in development way before JK made those horrible remarks.

It's a tricky situation

It's not that tricky is it?

If you want to buy the game, nobody is stopping you.

If you don't want to buy the game, then don't.

The idea that you can't boycott because it might harm "hundreds of jobs" is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that, I just think it's an interesting situation in terms of the morality of it all.

Glad I can always count on you to over simplify everything though

You sure this wasn't meant to be a PM?

Moggy wrote:

Wedgie wrote:That’s my two cents. I don’t give a damn what you think of my decision. So protest all you want.

I wish you had made that clear earlier.

Yawn.

Wedgie wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Wedgie wrote:That’s my two cents. I don’t give a damn what you think of my decision. So protest all you want.

I wish you had made that clear earlier.

Yawn.

For somebody that doesn't give a damn, you certainly seem quite rattled.

How much input just Jakey actually have in this game? Surely a boycott only hampers those involved in dev?

Prototype wrote:How much input just Jakey actually have in this game? Surely a boycott only hampers those involved in dev?

With the best will in the world, please read the thread. Both your question and statement have been answered several times over.

tl:dr none at all and not at all

So I bought my friends daughter the Harry Potter lego. I discussed it with her dad and he had no issue with it.
I'm not having a discussion with a 7 year old about it either.

My daughter is a huge Potter fan but she is appalled at Rowling and like many others is resolute that she won't be giving her any more money.
I discussed it with her and I asked her to think what she would be happy with in this scenario. She was fine with me purchasing the lego and I'm fine with it and I'll be purchasing the game if it reviews well.
I asked her if a donation to a suitable charity would be an acceptable way to balance this. I'm seeing her on Thursday so we will discuss it further.
People can and should be able to choose how they wish to deal with this.

For me - someone so famous with so much influence over such an impressionable audience... She should have chosen her words more carefully and she should have listened to the rational appeals calling for that and for her to apologise and also to educate herself on such a complex and multifaceted issue. Instead she has inflamed the situation and has a huge amount of responsibility for the upset, turmoil and pain that has followed.
I completely understand why so many vehemently oppose her views and actions and are acting accordingly. Voting with their wallets etc.

Im just not a big fan of being told exactly how I should act and feel about it.
I understand there are strong views on here.
I just hope that those who want to play the game can discuss its merits. Without continually becoming embroiled in this issue. Especially nearer to release.

If not then separate threads may be a solution.
I don't think that's needed at this stage though.

Denster wrote:
Im just not a big fan of being told exactly how I should act and feel about it.

I don't think anybody has done that. The thread has been mostly people saying what a banana split Rowling is, but that it's up to individuals whether they boycott the game or not.

The idea of a donation to a trans charity seems a good solution for those that love the world of HP but hate what Rowling is.