>

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.
/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.