Current Events > Hogwarts Legacy is already the 2nd best-selling game on Steam over a month 2

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkbuster posted...

All I'm going to say to this whole mess is that most people probably only seriously know JK Rowling as "British Harry Potter Lady", in the same sense that those who aren't that plugged into Jeopardy only know James Holzhauer as "Jeopardy Guy"; most people probably aren't seriously following whatever inane Twitter rant she had, & probably don't follow it beyond a TMZ article or Family Guy joke. Spending too much time on social media is really poison for the mind.

Second, attacking the people who have interest in the game is really not the most effective way to pursue your ideals. All you're doing is just making those people persecuted & compelling them to potentially buy the game in spite. A factor that makes me view MLK's advocacy for non-violent protests in a distinctly new light.

Third, if you're so bothered about who benefits & is affected by products bought & sold, then I suggest you discard the device you're reading/posting on, & live the rest of your life as a hermit in the mountain. The device you're reading this very text on was probably made with rare earth metals obtained with questionable practices, almost definitely constructed in Foxconn's Chinese factories, & the software probably had some crunch hours involved in its development. Even if you go to a McDonald's, you have no way of knowing which employee may donate their salary, no matter how little, to potentially "bigoted" causes. I'm certain some McD's employees will probably buy the game; will you seek out & cancel them too?

Finally, I'm not into Harry Potter & will probably never buy this game, regardless of its quality. I have no metaphorical horse in this race, so to speak, so don't even bother with the accusations that I'm defending or making any excuses.

People complaining about the game and it wasn't for the reason I expected. The high system requirements GTX 1070 for minimum is pretty steep and apparently you are running at low and resolution scaling may be needed. The recommended settings are pretty high too. 1080 Ti and that is only for 1080p high and with resolution scaling. I can't imagine how beefy of a rig do you need for 4k. I do think this game will end up as a benchmark since this game is quite next gen when it comes to system requirements. I hope I am okay with my RTX 3070 Ti and I probably have to temper my expectations and settle for running the game at 1080p.

Also the Streisand effect is in full force here. Admittedly this game wasn't even on my radar. However, with people complaining for a reason that has nothing to do with the game itself, it has gotten my interest. I may actually pick it up, probably not at full price at launch, but when there is a decent sale. So the attempt to cancel the game is getting more people interested which is pretty funny.

CyricZ posted...

So what do you suggest? That there's no point in engaging in activism unless you live a perfect monastic life?

I think the takeaway from this whole subject is... pick your battles wisely, because some of them are going to impede your movement more than help it.

BrightShield786 posted...

Cant wait to buy the game. As a Harry Potter fan, Ive been waiting for something like this for years.

Trolling is the easy answer. The tc clearly wants more fights to break out.

Luckily, as a moderator you have the power to shut down this clown show before it gets any worse, and it will get worse.

To 500! The popcorn must flow!

Ryzen_9_5950X posted...

People complaining about the game and it wasn't for the reason I expected. The high system requirements GTX 1070 for minimum is pretty steep and apparently you are running at low and resolution scaling may be needed. The recommended settings are pretty high too. 1080 Ti and that is only for 1080p high and with resolution scaling. I can't imagine how beefy of a rig do you need for 4k. I do think this game will end up as a benchmark since this game is quite next gen when it comes to system requirements. I hope I am okay with my RTX 3070 Ti and I probably have to temper my expectations and settle for running the game at 1080p.

Also the Streisand effect is in full force here. Admittedly this game wasn't even on my radar. However, with people complaining for a reason that has nothing to do with the game itself, it has gotten my interest. I may actually pick it up, probably not at full price at launch, but when there is a decent sale. So the attempt to cancel the game is getting more people interested which is pretty funny.

What's crazy is the game is suppose to be released on the Switch in July. I've been running a 1060 GTX for a while now and seeing this game's min specs has reminded me that I should upgrade my comptuer. I'm actually looking to build a new PC this summer since any upgrades at this point would require a new CPU and new motherboard.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I think the takeaway from this whole subject is... pick your battles wisely, because some of them are going to impede your movement more than help it.

So I should not have picked this battle? Why not? Because it's a popular franchise? Because muh video gamez?

CyricZ posted...

So what do you suggest? That there's no point in engaging in activism unless you live a perfect monastic life?

posting is not activism

Ryzen_9_5950X posted...

Also the Streisand effect is in full force here.

That isn't the Streisand Effect. The Streisand Effect is for censorship/the removal of information about something while a boycott is about bringing awareness about an issue and saying that you shouldn't support something. A more accurate usage of the Streisand Effect term would be how people decrying the boycott are causing the boycott to be more well known. People who want a boycott to fail want information about the boycott to be unheard of, yet by constantly bringing it up they have caused the boycott to seem far greater than it actually is.

CyricZ posted...

So I should not have picked this battle? Why not? Because it's a popular franchise? Because muh video gamez?

Because when you look at it from a neutral perspective and really take inventory of the pros and cons...

Accusing people of directly supporting bigotry, threatening to revoke someone's allyship, and arguing ad nauseum over the moral ramifications of... playing a Harry Potter video game... just seems like overkill and it gives the impression that you want to control people down to the smallest details of their lives.

On one hand, you could just say nothing. People can buy the game if they want to buy the game, and nothing bad will happen as a direct result of their actions. The absolute worst case is that jk Rowling gets like $3 in royalties or something.

On the other hand, you could make a huge fuss of the whole thing, directly attack the character and views of people who buy the game, play hardball with threats to label people as bigots/no longer allies... and in turn, make yourself and your movement out to be incredibly silly and aggressive.

Remember... it's just a game, we're all people, we all want to live our lives in peace. If somebody wants to play the game because it will bring them joy, let them buy it and stop harassing them.

MarcyWarcy posted...

posting is not activism

Boycotting something is activism.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Where is the transphobia in this topic? Can you point it out?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


That's the only way to know for sure.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Accusing people of directly supporting bigotry, threatening to revoke someone's allyship, and arguing ad nauseum over the moral ramifications of... playing a Harry Potter video game... just seems like overkill and it gives the impression that you want to control people down to the smallest details of their lives.

No, I want them to understand the implications of what they do. What they do is ultimately their decision, and... when you look at it from a neutral perspective, what I think of them should have no bearing on what they do.

On one hand, you could just say nothing. People can buy the game if they want to buy the game, and nothing bad will happen as a direct result of their actions. The absolute worst case is that jkn Rowling gets like $3 in royalties or something.

You know who else could say nothing? The people who insist on buying the game and arguing that it's not a bad thing. They don't have to out themselves as shopping for forgiveness.

What I intend to say is the facts, which are, once again: that JK Rowling is involved in anti-trans activism fueled by her wealth and influence, and buying Hogwarts Legacy is giving her money. Also that she has admitted that her continued wealth and success gives her motivation to continue her course in her activism.

On the other hand, you could make a huge fuss of the whole thing, directly attack the character and views of people who buy the game, play hardball with threats to label people as bigots/no longer allies... and in turn, make yourself and your movement out to be incredibly silly and aggressive.

So what if I do label them? Why should they care what I think?

Unless they do care. Hmm.

Remember... it's just a game, we're all people, we all want to live our lives in peace. If somebody wants to play the game because it will bring them joy, let them buy it and stop harassing them.

They don't have to be in this topic to buy the game and enjoy it. They don't have to engage with me in debate to enjoy the game. They don't need my approval to enjoy the game.

At least, from a neutral perspective, they shouldn't have to.

All this... for a video game? This video game determines if you support bigotry. The make all break all.

Sheesh

CyricZ posted...

So what if I do label them? Why should they care what I think?

An excellent question. It's one that you should carefully consider the next time you elect to help people "understand the implications" of playing a video game about a world they've loved for most of their lives.

Like I said, pick your battles. Because you're making it sound like being an ally is some kind of exclusive club with strict membership requirements.

Don't you want more people to consider themselves allies?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I'm serious, point it out

CyricZ posted...

In that we learn how anti-trans a famous person is? Would you think it be better that we not learn that?

I was speaking more that it gives people a really warped perception of the world & gravitas of a situation, but it probably would be better if we didn't have such a detailed window into people's lives. A lot of people have some weird or controversial ideas, especially rich people with a lot of time & money to actually pursue them, but before social media, they wouldn't likely ever know about them.

It's generally my policy not to be directly accusatory to folks (when implication works just fine). At the end of the day, if someone has already chosen to buy the game, nothing I say will sway them, so I'm fine with reminding people of the issue and let it be. Those I take issue with are the ones who insist on being forgiven, acquitted, or celebrated for not caring, and those people have been in these topics.

Problem is that if you want to affect change, you need to keep most people at least neutral. Someone who is indifferent to a cause is far less concerning than those who actively oppose it. Don't make enemies if you don't have to.

So what do you suggest? That there's no point in engaging in activism unless you live a perfect monastic life?

No, but change usually comes gradually. That means you have to pick which battles you can actually win, & prioritize the most important ones.

CyricZ posted...

Boycotting something is activism.

on that same page you already said that it is literally impossible for you to convince anyone to do anything to convince anyone to buy or not buy it, which would make you boycotting something inherently futile. activism is an attempt to bring about social or political change. if you've already acknowledged that isn't going to happen, you not buying it is not activism and neither is having endless circular pithy arguments about it

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Don't you want more people to consider themselves allies?

So you want me to lie to them.

darkbuster posted...

A lot of people have some weird or controversial ideas, especially rich people with a lot of time & money to actually pursue them, but before social media, they wouldn't likely ever know about them.

I daresay that it's a good thing that we are aware that, for example, JK Rowling is anti-trans, rather than wondering where all the anti-trans momentum was coming from.

darkbuster posted...

Problem is that if you want to affect change, you need to keep most people at least neutral. Someone who is indifferent to a cause is far less concerning than those who actively oppose it. Don't make enemies if you don't have to.

"It's best to keep people neutral"? How would you suggest any kind of progress in the world if we don't attempt to influence others? Do you think improvement just... happens?

As for the not making enemies, thank you for the advice but I've been here twenty years. I like to think I've developed a pretty decent sense of who among the people I speak to are "neutral" and who is bad faith from the jump.

No, but change usually comes gradually. That means you have to pick which battles you can actually win, & prioritize the most important ones.

Yes it does come gradually, and things are gradually slipping towards anti-trans when it comes to this issue. I'd rather not just sit around and hope it corrects itself.

And I'm not here to "win" a battle. I'm just here to remind people of those aforementioned facts. I can deal with the bad faith response if it means I can connect with someone who was otherwise unaware.

MarcyWarcy posted...

on that same page you already said that it is literally impossible for you to convince anyone to do anything to convince anyone to buy or not buy it

If I may clarify, if they're committed to buying it after having made my case, then there's probably not a lot I can do to change that afterwards.

The fun part is figuring out how committed they are to buying it, and when people struggle to defend their purchase...

Ryzen_9_5950X posted...

The high system requirements GTX 1070 for minimum is pretty steep and apparently you are running at low and resolution scaling may be needed.

That really doesn't seem that steep. 1070s are almost 7 years old now. Plus, this is a next gen game so the requirements should be a bit higher.

CyricZ posted...

So you want me to lie to them

No. I want you to cool it with the ultimatums. For the good of yourself and for the movement in general, stop dedicating so much time to shaming people for their entertainment choices. It's so inconsequential.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

No. I want you to cool it with the ultimatums. For the good of yourself and for the movement in general, stop dedicating so much time to shaming people for their entertainment choices. It's so inconsequential.

You want me to lie to them. You want me to tell them it's fine to buy Hogwarts Legacy and give Rowling money, and that they are still an ally if they do.

CyricZ posted...

You want me to lie to them. You want me to tell them it's fine to buy Hogwarts Legacy and that they are still an ally if they do.

It is, and they still can be. It's literally just a video game. You're hurting yourself and the movement by pushing this narrative claiming otherwise.

And how is that not lying to them?

CyricZ posted...

And how is that not lying to them?

Because it's the truth. You're lying to yourself by pressing the issue so hard. Deep down you have to know it doesn't matter that much, right?

comicfire posted...

Giving money to a hate group tends to get you labeled a bigot, yes

So are the developers a hate group too or do they get a pass for "just following orders"?

The people developing the game with a middle finger aimed at Rowling

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Because it's the truth.

"Because it isn't" isn't an answer. Tell me how.

CyricZ posted...

"Because it isn't" isn't an answer. Tell me how.

I have told you how. It's literally just a video game. Buying the game means you want to play the game.

It does not say anything about your political views, and it does not affect your status as a person. To claim otherwise is the problem here. You're going too far with this all-or-nothing act.

GranolaPanic posted...

Cyric, do you believe every single person involved in the development of this game is a bigot and is somehow complicit in endorsing Rowlings beliefs?

People like him see things in black and white. No gray area allowed.

GranolaPanic posted...

Cyric, do you believe every single person involved in the development of this game is a bigot and is somehow complicit in endorsing Rowlings beliefs?

I'm not in a position to judge every member of WB Games, but I am in a position to judge JK Rowling.

Is that not enough?

She does stand to gain from the success of this game, no?

"Alive and contributing to the cause" isn't really a unique situation. There are so many living assholes making money in the entertainment world that vote and are politically active.

Why is JK Rowling a bridge too far? She isn't even making the game herself. It's like calling someone a bigot for watching NFL on FOX with full knowledge of what FOX as a company supports on their other outlets.

hockeybub89 posted...

"Alive and contributing to the cause" isn't really a unique situation. There are so many living assholes making money in the entertainment world that vote and are politically active.

Why is JK Rowling a bridge too far? She isn't even making the game herself. It's like calling someone a bigot for watching NFL on FOX with full knowledge of what FOX as a company supports on their other outlets.

FOX is pay-per-view now? RIP, the grift is going strong.

ellis123 posted...

FOX is pay-per-view now? RIP, the grift is going strong.

Viewers = advertising dollars. Therefore watching the network puts more money in their pocket. Same exact argument as this, really.

Look, I get that I'm pretty unpopular in this. I do get that.

I just see everyone planting their feet on this one as a "muh video gamez" and not much beyond that. Like is Harry Potter so important to you?

There's a reason you want to play this game, right? "It's just a video game" my ass, you want to play this one for a reason.

TendoDRM posted...

That really doesn't seem that steep. 1070s are almost 7 years old now. Plus, this is a next gen game so the requirements should be a bit higher.

Well it is pretty steep considering the two most popular GPUs on Steam hardware survey, the 1650 and the 1060 don't even meet the system requirements. Though that may be more of an indicator of how bad GPUs have been in the last 5 years price wise. A modern day 3060 which is close to a 1080Ti is still pretty expensive for a mid range card. A mid range card costs as much as a high end card back in the day and today's high end card alone is more than what most people's prior entire gaming computer is worth.

The Switch port is going to be interesting. I wonder how the hell will they pull it off.

GranolaPanic posted...

What youre doing is passing judgement on people by proxy because of JK Rowling.

You have a choice. You've chosen something you believe more important to you.

CyricZ posted...

I'm not in a position to judge every member of WB Games, but I am in a position to judge JK Rowling.

Is that not enough?

She does stand to gain from the success of this game, no?

So if everybody at WB Games isn't automatically an anti-trans bigot, then why am I for wanting to buy the game, as a LGBTQ person and annoyingly vocal supporter?

CyricZ posted...

You want me to lie to them. You want me to tell them it's fine to buy Hogwarts Legacy and give Rowling money, and that they are still an ally if they do.

If they go ahead and put effort into negating whatever harm the purchase could cause, then they absolutely can buy the game. Like say she gets 5 per copy sold and someone buys the game and also donates twice that to pro trans organizations, then theyve on net supported trans people.

CyricZ posted...

There's a reason you want to play this game, right?

Because it looks fun and people like to have fun. And people have grown up with Harry Potter.

uwnim posted...

Like say she gets 5 per copy sold and someone buys the game and also donates twice that to pro trans organizations, then theyve on net supported trans people.

I think treating life like a video game karma meter where you go up 5 evil and 10 good means you're a good person is a bad way to look at things.

But I guess my next question is how bad does Rowling have to get? Where's the line?

hockeybub89 posted...

then why am I for wanting to buy the game, as a LGBTQ person and annoyingly vocal supporter?

I didn't call you an anti-trans bigot. I just felt you weren't the ally you seem to demand I view you as.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Viewers = advertising dollars. Therefore watching the network puts more money in their pocket. Same exact argument as this, really.

That isn't how TV channel advertising works. You sell your reliability to advertisers, not exact viewers. Whether or not you watch FOX will largely not change whether or not they get the same amount of money at this stage as they are already considered reliable with advertisers. In that vein cable channels historically make dramatically more by what they charge the cable companies to host their channel rather than their advertising (outside of weird one-offs like the Super Bowl).

So, not really. For the analogy to work you have to be actively using your money by giving it to the company in question. The better analogy would be to compare it to giving your money to the cable company as they give their money to Fox. It is still more degrees of separation, but that's how it goes.

CyricZ posted...

There's a reason you want to play this game, right? "It's just a video game" my ass, you want to play this one for a reason.

Gee, I wonder if this became the second best selling game on steam because everyone who preordered it wants to give their percent of royalty to JK Rowling.

Nope, it has nothing to do with the fact that Harry Potter fans are excited to finally get a game they always wanted to get, to be able to walk down the halls of Hogwarts in a "open world" enviroment that doesn't look like ass. Here's the thing, the game can be ass, but the marketing is giving what Harry Potter fans want the most.