🤔 they're getting brazen now
Well, my schizo nazi friend. Turns out libs are closeted Nazis. The entire plot is basically a Nazi fantasy story about how the banker Jews are controlling the world at the command of a secret cabal.
did you even see all the bullshit side content they're going to cram into it ?
no fucking way it's going to be decent,it's got Ubisoft Cancer already.
Who cares, games are allowed to have side content, get over it
Sounds fun to play
boycotting this game, because terfs are bad
not going to give that money to joanne, plus the game literally has you put down a slave rebellion
pirate the game and then spend as much time as you can rage hacking the mutliplayer praxis
no you dont understand, they like it, so it's fine
I am a sucker for magic school setting, so an entire RPG set in one makes me excited. If you can play a dark wizard and be genuinely an evil asshole it would be great, but that Harry Potter license probably greatly constrains the freedom.
The combat looks braindead
it has to appeal to the casuals
controversy aside, I could never take the wizarding world seriously. the only good part of the whole thing were the first few movies/books when it was mostly about children discovering a magical world but as soon as I see adults playing with magic wands I get completely lost
I liked the old PS2 Harry Potter games, very nostalgic
LOOKS LIKE POTTER'S GOING TO CRYYY!
y? is it because they look childish or something?
Sorry sweaty, the future is half a dozen IPs stamping on a human face, forever
>>25316>boycotting this game, because terfs are bad
ur mom a terf
Jokes aside, that anon's mom is likely indeed a TERF. And yours too.
mine is just a regular transphobe THOUGH
Imagine not being a nice liberal mum who just wants you to be happy, the absolute state
i meant having
i am not a mum myself
Hopefully it will at least be decent and will have enough depth/immersion potential, branching storylines, stuff to do in the world and the like. Since its not likely to be the true Hogwarts RP/wizarding world sim that many who enjoy the setting want (or even Persona/Bully style bits about classes, time management, decisions and social/romance links. There seems to be some indication features kinda like this will be present but to what degree who knows), the best that can be hoped for is it a decent adventure game. I am skeptical however that it will just have set pieces (there are references to the various magical games and whatnot like wizards chess or exploding snap, even apparently quidditch outfits given one leaked screenshot but you can't actually play any of them!) and simplified things like spell casting to cater to a wider, more casual playerbase.
It could still be a decent game but we'll have to see what comes of it. They've kept a good amount of it hidden to avoid spoilers, but I guess we'll have to see.
>but but problematic story!
Not really buying this as an issue. A powerful goblin (and its not like goblins were inherently antisemitic or Rowling created the overall trope which has similarities in folklore in many parts of the world ) teaming up with dark wizards to enact a scheme seems reasonable enough for an antagonist given the setting.
>But but bad Rowling terfterfterf
Yeah okay whatever. Putting aside the whole ability to separate creation itself from creator in terms of artistic merit, Rowling is not even involved in the creation of the game story, only that she created the universe and licensed it to the various studios involved. Know who is though? All the various workers involved in the game's development. I'd think its a little gauche to boycott the game because of Rowling, when its obvious that the staff of those working for the developer/publisher are likely to be more directly effected and some of whom are likely living paycheck to paycheck. Its likely the game will sell very well, but lets pretend that it didn't - Rowling's wallet and life won't really fundamentally change, but that means certainly no bonuses and a great likelihood of being let go in the next restructuring and/or the studio dissolved. If the game fails because its a bad game, shitty monetization or the like that absolutely sucks for the workers involved (many of whom were not responsible for those decisions and/or only had a small part of it) and regardless reforming for better worker treatment should continue, but to avoid buying a game you'd otherwise purchase to hurt a tangentially connected, financially insulated creator of the thematic universe because they're "bad" , while ignoring the many other people involved in its creation who aren't "bad" and far more vulnerable to such harm, doesn't seem logical.
Ultimately the game is likely to sell quite well. I hope its a good game and the monetization is not garbage; at least it claims to have no microtransactions (though I am concerned about a supposedly playstation exclusive questline and ability to own a shop . Better be a timed exclusive thing at best, or just a console exclusive and also possible on PC. Still any for m of contract exclusivity is not acceptable). Guess we'll see how things evolve.
>>25507>nooo don't boycott reactionary capitalists because you're hurting the workers :<
Is there a switch to turn your brain off or is that its natural state? This is the downside when someone uses leftism as a substitute for a personality - they just start bleating the vernacular.
>reactionary capitalist hurrdurrr
First of all Rowling isn't even the 'reactionary capitalist" in control of this endeavor. That whole thing would be a different bad argument if it was targeting the head of WB or whatever and didn't have any meaningful goals or alignment with the workers involved, but that's not even the issue here. Having a temper tantrum about Rowling and isn't going to affect a damn thing for her given not just her wealth and will affect actual workers, so its a dickish thing to do. If you're just so hard up about Rowling that you're okay with fucking over a bunch of game devs then at least be honest about it and not pretend that you're doing something either effective or virtuous.
Rowling gets money when you buy this game that she will use to fuck over the left wing in the UK, Scottish independence, and trans people, so if you are cool with that and think it's not reactionary then ok sure whatever.
you're right, time to sail the seas
>>25510>Rowling gets money when you buy the game
Do you know that? Especially when she has no creative input (she isn't writing the script, developing new characters etc..) its even less likely that she gets a cut of each sale and instead is paid a flat licensing fee to use the official "wizarding world" universe, regardless of individual sales. There's a ton of different possibilities for such licensing arrangements and royalties. >If you buy the game she'll fuck over the left and trans people!
This treating her as some sort of mastermind who is going to upend the entire political establishment to her will is unlikely. She's not some sort of Koch-like figure funding all sorts of evil policies - her political giving has been fairly milquetoast and aside from that what she offers is her own opinion which people will either agree with or repudiate. All of this seems unrelated to the success or failure of the game; She's not sitting there tenting her fingers saying "as soon as I have 100,000 sales then my plan will be able to begin!" . She's able to say and do what she wishes either way.
Ultimately nothing having to do with this game is going to affect anything for her , so it comes down to literally virtue signaling to make that and that the primary reason you won't buy it. Sure, don't buy, pirate if you wish etc.. but lets not pretend there's some good being done here pragmatically or otherwise. If you're concerned about whatever tiny minuscule hypothetical contribution you're giving to Rowling (even assuming the worst that she does get some small part of each sale), why are you not concerned about the much greater, more likely, harm that could be done to to the many developers and other employees who create nearly the entire game save for the setting? Some of them are probably left-leaning, some may even be trans etc…and their well being is a fuckload more tied to the game's success than Rowling's. Why is it so easy to visualize a massive abstract web of her evil that you're somehow enabling, but you can't wrap your mind about their commonplace, down to earth struggle?
Even if Rowling has a flat royalty fee (doubtful) buying the game will lead to more HP games being made so it's still giving her money. As for 'she's not a Koch-like figure', uh yes she is, she has given stacks of cash to reactionaries.
As a resident of Edinburgh, Rowling was eligible to vote in the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, and intended to vote "No". She donated £1 million (US$1,694,000) to the Better Together anti-independence campaign, led by former neighbour and friend Alistair Darling, and used the "Death Eaters" characters from her Harry Potter series—who reject wizards unless they have pure blood—as a reference in her explanation of her donation: "However, when people try to make this debate about the purity of your lineage, things start getting a little Death Eaterish for my taste." In Rowling's post-donation blog post in mid-June 2014, she explained that she is "friendly" with members of both campaigns and stated a belief that "there are intelligent, thoughtful people on both sides of this question".https://twitter.com/setoacnna/status/1518647598063706114
>>25517>why are you not concerned about the much greater, more likely, harm that could be done to to the many developers and other employees
maybe because they got paid a flat wage to work on the game and the only people that would lose out if it failed are the suits
lol lmao really why are you so invested in this
moron>>25517>Do you know that?
harry potter has ALWAYS been shit,
Author JK Rowling donates 1 million sterling to fight Scottish independencehttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-scotland-independence-jkrowling-idUKKBN0EM0T620140611
>LONDON (Reuters) - JK Rowling, Britain’s best-selling author and creator of teenage wizard Harry Potter, has donated 1 million pounds ($1.68 million) to the campaign against Scottish independence, saying on Wednesday she believed Scotland was better off staying in the United Kingdom.
given the SNP trans stuff, she'll probably give 10 trillion pounds to bremain this time.
>>25527>More HP games
The issue is that the amount of money you're likely to give her is, even in the most favorable to her hypothetical, comparatively minuscule vs all the others involved in the creation of this game. Thus, deciding to not buy the game because of the hypothetical negative effect of contributing to her at all, yet ignoring all the other much more likely and impactful negatives that could affect others in its production chain seems illogical and hypocritical.
There are trans fans of harry potter who are planning to buy the game (a game in which you can independently choose your voice, appearance, and witch/wizard ) because they can realize that Rowling having a bad take doesn't mean they don't like the setting, and that the creator of a fictional setting being "problematic" means less and less, diluted for the presence of all the others making derivative works utilizing that setting.
There's not a creative/artistic endeavor around, especially a massively popular one, that doesn't have some jerk somewhere as part of its development, but its important to be realistic about the actual impact, rather than getting hung up on a dogmatic objection that is out of line with reality and always very specifically around hot-button issues or individuals. I see almost nobody claiming they are ideologically boycotting the game based on objection to WB and its host of properties and subsidiaries, or even for game dev/monetization or related reasons (the validity of those arguments not withstanding).
>"stacks of cash to reactionaries".
Not really seeing anything that suggests that. As I said, milquetoast. Being against Scotland (where she resides last I heard) leaving the UK, or against Brexit isn't exactly a "reactionary" position, or even a conservative one. There are many motivations for such a thing across the board and from how she phrased it being against blood and soil nationalism doesn't exactly scream reactionary. Atop that, Even if she gave to a cause with whom you disagreed, there's a major difference between being a Koch like figure who throws around so much money that they not only enable but directs a large swathe of conservative policy and someone who simply supports something you don't like; losing that perspective doesn't help>>25528
So…everything's okay because the workers got paid a wage? That the viability of what they create has no bearing on their financial security or future? In just about any industry there's a high percentage that lack of success will be passed down the chain to the workers to insulate the those at the top, but game development is particularly noteworthy for a number of reasons.
Many game devs, especially those overseen by megacorp AAA publishers have very little job security, unless there's either in upper management or a senior/director rank creative/engineer. The lowest ranks are often hourly contractors officially working for a 3rd party (a lot of testers and similar QA fall into this) and even those who work directly for the company are on tenuous footing. Low compensation and "crunch" hours are often justified with promises of bonuses if a project reaches some sales target on one hand with the carrot, and "its video games, there are thousands clambering for your job." for the stick. People are frequently let go when a project completes even if the game was deemed "successful" and whole teams and departments will be shuttered if a title is thought to underperform. There's a lot of other stuff going on in game dev and part of its a reason that game companies are some of the first in tech moving towards unionization, but suffice it to say if the game does poorly its going to impact those who made it.
I'm just annoyed with lefties who can seem to conceptualize hypothetically that even a minute contribution to Rowling is a reason to boycott the game assuming that to do so will empower her to harm others, yet ignore much more likely and impactful hypothetical harms. All the while failing to look realistically at all the facets of the situation yet proudly proclaim they're morally right and making a difference, with anyone who doesn't agree must want to hang trans people in the street or whatever.
It is a purely emotional, virtue signaling reaction. Nobody is saying you have to buy the game - don't buy it, pirate it, do whatever you like - but don't pretend to be a moral arbiter based on a hypothetical that is so limited in scope , while invoking that anyone who doesn't take your path to be evil hateful bigots or whatever the fuck. Note I'm not saying "you" to the anon in particular to which I replied, but since they asked why I'm invested, its the same conflict going back years with the politically correct left-leaning wing who focuses exclusively on a narrow band of issues/viewpoints and extrapolates harm to a ridiculous degree.
DEVELOPERS DON'T GET PAID ON ROYALTIES.
truly fascinating that this constantly get ignored in every dev discussion,with the additionnal "a ton of staff gets laid off the moment the game is finished already,regardless of performance" that BTFO the "but they're gonna lose their jobs".
Nobody said they do (assuming rank and file devs in a AAA publisher project)? >>25582
Didn't I just cover that specifically above? However to suggest that "everyone gets laid off no matter what" also lacks context considering there's a big difference between "Most of you on the team that made that high profile big seller? Half of you are going going to be moved onto the expansion/DLC post launch sustained content team immediately and the other half will be moved to new property X which is in an early phase of development" and "I'm sorry to report that we just don't have room for those of you who were working on Y, which didn't connect with its audience".
Of course all of this is somewhat beside the point. The reference wasn't here to illustrate "you have to buy it or else everyone will lose their jobs" but rather that not buying it specifically because of one circumstance with extremely remote, limited hypothetical potential to contribute to harm when all is taken into account, yet ignoring all other potential hypothetical harms which are far less remote, limited, and extrapolated doesn't make sense if you claim to be motivated by harm and equip oneself with the moral certitude to judge others.
I'm talking explecitely about outside company contractors,who are here only for the duration of the project,and end up being half of the production on AAA titles outside maybe Ubisoft who employs way too many people.
This. The devs already got paid. The only way it makes any sense to say that sales affect dev pay is if the game continues to update with new content or DLC packs that developers continue working on.
Basically this. Plus the developers aren't only working on Harry Potter. They'd have a point if the studio only worked on Harry Potter but they make on but it isn't.
TBH I don't really have a problem with this, it's silly when the entire map is surrounded by cliffs or whatever and every possible exit is blocked by a waist high obstruction
It seems to be related to a fail state for a timed/proximity quest, I'm guessing by the "follow poppy" dialog near the map. Now, I don't favor it being giant fucking UI text at all, but I do understand the need for some sort of "You're getting too far from the baddy you need to chase, the NPC you need to escort, the zone of investigation or whatever the fuck" notification. However, I prefer it to be something more in universe/character instead but I do at least kinda understand a "final" countdown to failed state has to be fairly dramatic so people understand both what is happening, how long they have, and what they need to do to avert it.
reminder that if you just pirate it, you'll get to enjoy the game without supporting the transphobic piece of shit and paying for an overpriced clump of data lmao
>>25507>I'd think its a little gauche to boycott the game because of Rowling, when its obvious that the staff of those working for the developer/publisher are likely to be more directly effected and some of whom are likely living paycheck to paycheck
The gamedevs will get paid for their work before it's released, and they definitely won't be seeing a droplet of the profit made from the sales itself. Meanwhile, Rowling gets royalties on the sales profit.
>>25507>its not like goblins were inherently antisemitic or Rowling created the overall trope which has similarities in folklore in many parts of the world
"Ukraine isn't full of nazis because they're just following the tropes of Russians with their Protocols of the Elder Zion pamphlet" bruh>Know who is though? All the various workers involved in the game's development.
A lead game dev supported Gamergate, an early alt-right nazi movie that screeched about "(((cultural Marxists))) are destroying western civilization by making radical critiques of our consumer products". I think it's fair to say that the devs are adjacent to antisemetic conspiracy nazi ideology https://www.indiewire.com/2021/02/harry-potter-game-designer-gamergate-youtube-channel-1234619220/>they're "bad" , while ignoring the many other people involved in its creation who aren't "bad" and far more vulnerable to such harm, doesn't seem logical.
"Support workers by buying nazi propaganda about Jews, you fucking class traitor…wtf you can't just call me "Bad", what does that even mean??? Actually there is no such thing as bad things" Using scare quotes is a good sign that you're a reactionary, TERFs do that cognitive dissonance praxis all the time to reduce their mental stress.
uh isn't being against hackneye'd tropes and deconstruction bad actually???? Cliches are good now!!
Unique IPs: 38