>

Response to Issue 1: All the people who worked on this game already got paid. They are not hurt by a boycott. Acting as if they are hurt is silly. If people boycott the game because of Rowling it will not hurt their careers. Multiple members of the dev team have already made statements affirming this. This is the big one, since without this issue that means no one will be collateral damage from a boycott.
Response to issue 2: Separating the art from the artist is about quality, not money. The game may be great, but if by supporting it we give money to bad causes then we are still doing a bad thing. You are not a bad person for enjoying Harry Potter. But giving Rowling money is still bad. And acting as if she already is too rich to hurt is just a rationalization. Just because she already has a lot of money doesn't mean that we should just continually give her more. And acting as if her art is super unique and irreplaceable outside of a nostalgia is just incorrect. This game is a fantasy open world exploration game, there are several others on the market that you could spend time on instead.
Response to issue 3: Rowling has done good in the past, absolutely. Currently, she uses her platform to push evil. If and when she changes that, we should change our attitude towards her. It's that simple. She is currently speaking about and funding TERF causes more than any others. 
My conclusion: This game, like it or not, has become a part of a larger conversation. If it is a huge success, Rowling will claim that is tacit support of her views. She already uses her success as good reason to believe that her views are not hateful. As people who support trans people, we should try to avoid this. 
Speaking of trans people, try putting yourself in those shoes. The creator of a massive media property makes her entire public persona about hating you and people like you. Then her company releases a massive video game and all the people who say they support you buy it and talk about how fun it is. Imagine how that would hurt. 
At the end of the day, Harry Potter IS J.K. Rowling's. This IS her game, set in her world, and the profits from it will largely go to her. Boycotting it hurts nobody and sends a good message.
/u/ZombieIsTired (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

The developers, writers, artists, etc have already been paid. The profits go to the publisher and to Rowling. 
Devs get paid upfront, contractually. They often have some bonuses based on performance and sales, but they’ve already been paid. They do not need the game to succeed. Even if all of the devs made money based on the games’ success, the publisher already gave them an advance. They’d only make money after recouping that advance. There’s no world where the developers are not already paid for developing this game. You fundamentally misunderstand how the finances work in this situation. 
Why am I obligated to financially support this team, though? There are all sorts of things I don’t buy; that doesn’t make me responsible for the creator’s lack of success.
We don’t need to do these mental gymnastics here. Your not purchasing Hogwarts Legacy is not going to lead to a developer starving. Even if it did — games flop all the time. Movies flop all the time. Art is often not commercially viable or successful. Trying to shame people as villains for not buying an $80 vanity project is a bad argument, a poor appeal to emotions, and one that doesn’t need to be made. >


Why am I obligated to financially support this team, though? There are all sorts of things I don’t buy; that doesn’t make me responsible for the creator’s lack of success.

Who says you are obligated?
There are all sorts of things we all don't buy. That doesn't mean we are actively boycotting the item/company/etc. There is a difference between not buying you don't want/need vs boycotting something and encouraging others to boycott something for social/political reasons. >

OP’s argument for why the game shouldn’t be boycotted implies an obligation to financially support the developers. 
If OP’s premise is true (it isn’t, but let’s assume it is) then I don’t see how the choice to not buy is less morally harmful than the choice to boycott. If the reason we shouldn’t boycott is because the devs might starve (they won’t) or won’t have food on the table (they will), then isn’t that a moral imperative to buy, not simply to not boycott?
Either way, the proposed financial harm to the developers by boycotting does not exist. The only entities at a risk of serious financial harm are the publisher and JK Rowling. >


OP’s argument for why the game shouldn’t be boycotted implies an obligation to financially support the developers.

I'm not seeing that. Could you copy/paste the specific part of the post that states or implies that OP believes all people are obligated to buy this product?