I think there are bigger problems in the video game industry than the political beliefs of the original IP creator. There are many bigger issues at hand that most of these people choosing to boycott this game ignore in the industry as a whole. Voting with your wallet is a powerful tool. So, it seems rather petty if this is the first time many of them are doing so.

Question, what developers, studios and publishers do you currently, actively avoid? I personally refuse to buy anything from EA. Yet, when they finally released a single player game in Jedi: Fallen Order, I bought it day one. I think it's important to take a stand, but you also need to monetarily reward businesses when they do the right thing you'd like to see more of. Otherwise, your voice is meaningless because you're not actually voting with your wallet.

We don't always have to agree with people for them to create something worthy of our attention. With as far removed as JKR is from this project, I think it's quite sad to allow such negativity to affect you. Especially since this is a game that almost every fan of the series that's a gamer has been wishing for. There's a studio that has spent many years making this game, trying to turn what was a childhood fantasy into a reality, probably with little to no contact from JKR. I value rewarding that over any disagreement I may have with JKR politically.

 

"I value rewarding them for creating something that I want, more than I value taking a moral stand against them doing or believing things I disagree with."

Cool, but not something I agree with.

Not sure of the relevance of this question tbh, but I'm the definition of a casual gamer. I've not purchased a new game in over 3 years, I don't follow whats going on in the industry, and I've no idea who I would or wouldn't be willing to buy from right now.

You boycott them until they publish something you actually really want to play? Thats definitely going to teach them a lesson...

Is it petty if this is the first time many of them have come across a game which is connected to an individual with whom they have a significant issue? JKR is far more famous than any individual in the gaming industry. And her controversial views are far more widely advertised than the controversial views of any individual within the gaming industry.

You have to remember that the people who are saying they won't be buying this game because of JKR aren't hardcore gamers who're willing to abandon their morals just to play a game they've always dreamed of. They're casual gamers who don't spend their lives embedded within the gaming industry, and who don't care so much about a game that they'll abandon their principles for it.

 

Straw man.

An argument I'm seeing a lot these days, which is another straw man.

 

No, its exactly what you said.

"I was boycotting them for reasons, until they published this game that I wanted and then I bought it to reward them for making this game"

Is that not what you just said?

I think maybe you don't know what a straw man is, if you're saying thats a straw man. Do you want to try and respond again, and actually say why you disagree with what I said?

 

Different poster, but what you put in quotes is not what they said.

I know exactly what a straw man is, and you are doing it by saying that people who buy the game are abandoning their principles/morals, instead of making an actual argument.

 

That literally is the argument.

Everyone is going to calculate differently what matters, and to what degree. Hush sees the connection as tenuous, or doesn't care in the first place, and values rewarding the studio for creating the game more than expressing displeasure. Mordecai doesn't, seeing the reward for creating the game as less important than a principled stand otherwise. Nothing said thus far has been a straw man, and they can legitimately have that argument even if it's unlikely to be productive.

 

I changed the words but not the content, its called a summary, not a straw man. He literally said he did exactly what I put in quotation marks. Its not a straw man if someone has said they've done it.

No, if you read what I said, I said that if you are boycotting someone and then choose to buy from them you're abandoning your principles. If you decide that you don't care enough about whatever issue to boycott them, then sure go ahead and buy from them. You're not abandoning your principles there because you hadn't taken a principled stand. And at no point did I suggest anything else.

So do you want to try again and actually make an argument about why you disagree with what I said?

 

That's exactly why it is a straw man.

"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making."

@Mordecai This is a response to your latest post as well, since you apparently don't know what a straw man is. You can drop the attitude too.

 

no u

 

Ok, so you've googled what a straw man is, thats a good start. Now explain to me what the extreme distortion or exaggeration in what I said was. Because as far as I can see, all I did was summarise exactly what he posted without any exaggeration at all.

 

Christ, this has been debated to death already. There's a separate thread for hating on JKR. Take it from someone who doesn't know when to stfu bitching about EA.

 

Again with the attitude, but sure.

What was said: "We don't always have to agree with people for them to create something worthy of our attention. With as far removed as JKR is from this project, I think it's quite sad to allow such negativity to affect you. Especially since this is a game that almost every fan of the series that's a gamer has been wishing for. There's a studio that has spent many years making this game, trying to turn what was a childhood fantasy into a reality, probably with little to no contact from JKR. I value rewarding that over any disagreement I may have with JKR politically."

Your quote: "I value rewarding them for creating something that I want, more than I value taking a moral stand against them doing or believing things I disagree with."

It's not a summary, it's a distortion of what was actually said, and you attacked that distorted stance rather than the actual stance..

 

Ahhhhh so the problem is that you didn't read the post I replied to? Ok...that explains it.

I'll quote the relevant part here, just to bring you up to speed with the conversation.

He says the following things:

1. I refuse to buy anything from EA.
2. When they released Jedi: Fallen Order, I broke my boycott and bought it on day 1.
3. I did this to reward them for making a game I wanted.

Now if you want to take another run at it, what part of:

is an exaggeration or distortion?

 

I read that, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten involved.

Also, could you be any more condescending with that second sentence?

Again, let's looks at them side by side.

What was said: "I personally refuse to buy anything from EA. Yet, when they finally released a single player game in Jedi: Fallen Order, I bought it day one. I think it's important to take a stand, but you also need to monetarily reward businesses when they do the right thing you'd like to see more of. Otherwise, your voice is meaningless because you're not actually voting with your wallet."

Your quote: "I value rewarding them for creating something that I want, more than I value taking a moral stand against them doing or believing things I disagree with."

You miss out his actual reasoning for why he brought the game, and attributed it to something totally different.

It's almost as if you either didn't read or completely ignored the bolded part, and only argued against the unbolded part.

 

I think you're interpreting what he said in a totally different way than I am then. Because the bolded section, to me, reads as he really wanted the game, so he bought the game despite having decided to not buy anything from EA. Which is what I included in my summary of what he said. If you want to interpret it to mean something else, go ahead. But that doesn't make what I said a straw man.

To suggest that boycotts only work if you're willing to keep buying from the business or individual you're boycotting is ridiculous. The entire point is that you don't buy from them until there's meaningful change that resolves your reason for boycotting. If you keep buying from them then its not a boycott.

 

Leaving out context is straw manning. Plain and simple.

Yes it is. It's called dollar voting.

 

Again, I didn't leave out any context. I summarised. As in, made briefer whilst leaving out nothing relevant. You feel I left out relevant information because you're reading what he said very, very differently to how I am. And thats fair. You're allowed to disagree with me, and to argue alternate positions. However, refusing to actually make a point and instead simply saying "straw man" without bothering to invest anything more in the discussion is kind of pointless.

Spending money on an organisation or individual you're boycotting is called "not boycotting" by normal people.

 

I think you may well be misinterpreting Hush, to be honest, possibly because of this:

Now, I don't know why Hush refuses to buy anything from EA, but given your comment about new games, not knowing what's going on in the industry, are you aware that one of the most common reasons for boycotting EA is that they have, over several years, made a habit of pushing predatory microtransactions and constantly online multiplayer 'live-service' games rather than single-player, claiming that single-player titles are dead? And then Fallen Order came along and is, by all accounts, a fairly lengthy, in-depth single-player RPG, with no online mode or microtransactions. Something people had been wanting EA to do for literally years. Or, as you put it..."The entire point is that you don't buy from them until there's meaningful change that resolves your reason for boycotting."

 

Yes, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying that @Shinysavage if there was actual meaningful change, then yes abandoning the boycott makes perfect sense.

Amazing what saying more than "straw man" in a reply does for clear communication.

 

Yes, it is amazing that reading what a post actually says should make its meaning clear.