>


The developers can work on other projects that arent tied to Rowling.Ultimately there is no obligation for a consumer to purchase a product;you seem to think I should buy every video game ever made because it haddevelopers.

Developers create an art form, and artists should deserve to have their work viewed. Boycotting would mean that the developers don't have the opportunity to receive the criticism that their work deserves.
They can work for whatever they want, but again, it's not their deal that Rowling just so happens to be the person who created the world that their video game takes place in. They should be able to work on this game without that being an issue.
I think you misunderstand what a boycott is. Not buying a game because you don't want to is not boycotting. Not buying the game that you might have bought, then spreading the ideology that this game ought not to be bought  is boycotting.
​

My point with 3 was that just cause some people are worse than othersdoesnt mean the 'less' bad ones cant be criticized for their actions.Yes, the Zodiac is worse than Rowling. But that doesnt make Rowlingimmune to facing backlash and losing support for being a transphobe.

Again, I never said that she shouldn't face backlash, just that we should understand that she can do both negative and positive things. I mean seriously, do you think we should just see her purely as a one-dimensional person? Is her only trait a transphobe? I mean, if that's your viewpoint then that's ironically pretty dehumanizing.
Obviously, she should be criticized for her harmful choices, but that doesn't mean we should blindly throw more hatred toward her when she does beneficial things.
​

At what point does someone cross a line where people are allowed tocriticize them and take actions against them like a boycott? Why must Ibe obligated to spend money to support someone who thinks friends andfamily of mine are a scourge to society?

If you read my post, the whole point is that she has nothing to do with the makings of this project. You don't have to buy it, but at the very least you shouldn't spread more hatred when this game was created by people who have nothing to do with her.
She gets some money from this. I never said you were obligated to buy this game, but it's nonsensical to think that this is her project.
You are directly supporting her, but the point is you're not going to be supporting her alone. She is one of many many people who will profit and/or benefit from the reception of this game. I think it's irrational to not consider the other people who will benefit from the makings of this game.
You should do what you want with your money. I'm not telling you to buy this game, but in general, I think the actions of a few should not be the consequences of many.
/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? >

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. >


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.

Fair, but I still believe that denying an artist a means to have their art viewed due to an outsider's dispute is unfair and silly, but if what you said is true then I suppose the dev's probably don't care about Rowling or the issue of boycotting.
​

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.

This is hard for me to definitively agree with. Her money will go towards places that I vehemently disagree with, but some of the money will go to places that are undeniably good for humanity, and since these are very large sums of money we are talking about, I feel split. Though, a large portion will still directly support her and her platform, which is hard to argue against. It's a win-lose either way. 
​

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.

I think her art is super unique in the sense that for a fantasy open-world exploration game, Harry Potter would probably be the first choice for a lot of people. The idea itself isn't too unique, but I think the general execution and world building to this point is exciting for people. It's unique in the sense that few other fantasy ideas would be able to make a game as instantly recognizable to it's players. 
​

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.

Id hope that my trans friends would understand that I would want to play a video game set in a world that we all grew up with and in, and not that I'm trying to support a biggot. I don't have any intention to act in harmful a harmful manner, and I also support LGBTQ rights when and where I can considering it's also my own livelihood on the line. Though if I'm being entirely honest, most of my trans friends don't really care, because they "don't give a shit about Rowling" in the first place, not to say that this is the sentiment of all trans people, just my friends.
​

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.

I don't think you can call this her game. The world is hers, but she did none of the work to actively create this game. Sure, the writers probably had an easier time since most of the foundations were already there, but this is like calling every new StarWars spinoff George Lucas's, when it's very clearly not. And the profits will probably only marginally go to her, considering that WB studios produced the game in the first place, not her company. In fact, she will only be receiving royalties, which could be high, but certainly not majority.
I also disagree that this sends a good message. This sends the message that we should actively punish group works due to the actions of a single entity, which I think is one of those things that is pretty upsetting. We shouldn't punish game due to one person who is tangentially related to the process of making the game. 
​

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.

I didn't think about how she could manipulate the success of the game to push her hateful agenda, and I think that's actually a fairly good point honestly.
You brought up a lot of good points that I agree with, and I appreciate the effort you made to understand my point of view, some of the other comments strawmanned my arguments, so it's nice to see some additional points that I didn't consider.
Δ >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DuhChappers (16∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

There is no "mass boycott" of this game. A few loud people on the internet means little. >

A boycott would discourage media corporations from partnering with someone who uses their platform to disparage and discriminate. The game absolutely has something to do with Rowling if they have to license her intellectual property. It will help to enrich her and give her more attention and resources to spread her causes.
I think a successful boycott is defacto legitimate, as it means that enough people believed in the cause to change their behavior. The producers are not entitled to people overlooking this association if they don't want to support Rowling. >

The only way that I, a consumer, can show my distaste of her AND her IP is by not playing. 
I won't buy it & I won't play it. 
If a whole bunch of other people agree, they will also refuse to play. >


Why do the careers of game developers need to suffer from Rowling if this game flops due to people not wanting to buy it because of her?
Enjoying the books will in some way or another support her. Whether it be me talking about re-reading them, or future children seeing them, by just keeping the books in my house, I inevitably support her.
This is a Strawman. How could you disagree that people are morally ambiguous? And how can you even compare the cruelties of the Zodiac Killer to Rowling? I never said that she doesn't deserve criticism or punishment for her harmful words. I just said it's better to view her as someone with a multi-faceted personality, as do all people on earth. >

The developers can work on other projects that arent tied to Rowling. Ultimately there is no obligation for a consumer to purchase a product; you seem to think I should buy every video game ever made because it had developers.
My point with 3 was that just cause some people are worse than others doesnt mean the 'less' bad ones cant be criticized for their actions. Yes, the Zodiac is worse than Rowling. But that doesnt make Rowling immune to facing backlash and losing support for being a transphobe.
At what point does someone cross a line where people are allowed to criticize them and take actions against them like a boycott? Why must I be obligated to spend money to support someone who thinks friends and family of mine are a scourge to society?