-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
A call to Era's developers and mods about the "think of the poor devs" argument.
- Thread starter Weltall Zero
- Start date
User Banned (2 Weeks): Dismissing concerns
Sounds like an excuse so folk can absolve themselves of feeling bad about it or trying to look more "woke' or progressive than the next kid.
My girlfriend was over the moon after seeing the trailer, I'm interested even though I'm not a harry potter fan so we will get it. If it makes me a terrible person or makes others look at me differently, then oh fucking well. Thems the brakes. I don't agree with the HP authors shitty mentality but the game looks slick so I'm going to buy it. I bought kingdom come, will buy cyberpunk as well and won't lose a wink of slerp over it. I want the games, simple as that. I may not agree with the devs beliefs and thats fine, I don't have to in order to enjoy the products.
My girlfriend was over the moon after seeing the trailer, I'm interested even though I'm not a harry potter fan so we will get it. If it makes me a terrible person or makes others look at me differently, then oh fucking well. Thems the brakes. I don't agree with the HP authors shitty mentality but the game looks slick so I'm going to buy it. I bought kingdom come, will buy cyberpunk as well and won't lose a wink of slerp over it. I want the games, simple as that. I may not agree with the devs beliefs and thats fine, I don't have to in order to enjoy the products.
OP
OP
If only there was some way for them to do just that. Alas, we all have this dude with a gun to our heads that will blow our brains out if we don't tell everyone else, in every platform available to us, what games we play, and the bullshit reasons why that is morally justified.
While I agree with this sentiment, I also think we should extend such a ban to cover other media properties that are linked to bigots and problematic people in general. But we all know that's not going to happen with games like Cyberpunk.
I mean, yeah, exactly.
Edit: And I want to add that you don't know where JK Rowling's reach actually stops, right?
OP
OP
The was someone claiming that they've worked on the game for the past three years in the announcement thread. Dude was whining about people not willing to buy the game because the game is tied to a raging bigot. Yeah...
That's an easy and dismissive way to respond to what I said, but cool, I guess? Because WHATABOUTISM is used to dismiss arguments of moral ethics when what I'm struggling with is how empathetic I feel towards a vast array of human suffering. Like, fuck.
Dev Response: HandsomeCharles
As one of your fellow devs, I'm with you here.
I'm an adult. I can cope with finding a new job if necessary. Don't use me as excuse to legitimize support of hatred.
I mean, the things Nintendo gets called "anti-consumer" for are things like not putting games on sale and not adding Galaxy 2 to SM3DAS. And most indie games don't even have those criticisms. Those are both pretty far cries from supporting Activision-Blizzard or J.K. Rowling or Ubisoft.
We can't draw the line for you. That's something you should decide for yourself.
For me it is easy to avoid the Harry potter game because there's very few things I care less about than HP. Rowling being a shitstain just ensures that I'll never buy it even for curiosity's sake. I absolutely love FarCry but I won't be buying 6 because suppoorting a company that excuses sexual harassment is too much for me.
Yeah but you can consume problematic media in ways that lessens your direct support.
Like if you really wanna play this bc it looks fun or Harry Potter meant a lot to you growing up—fine. But why not buy used so you can at the very least feel like you're not directly putting money into a terf's pocket?
I find this to be a pretty easy solution myself. If their abhorrent politics bleed into the gameplay, I just don't play it. If they're separate, I buy used. Easy as that.
OP
OP
I speak personally but I always felt it was an at best it was an easy out for folks that don't want to engage in the discussion( which is fine if you don't want to engage just don't shit it up for those that do) at worse gaslighting folks concerned about something. Do what you want with your money no one is going to stop you but don't expect to be able to wave it in folks face. And I not talking about having a ernest discussion about the game, but bullshit when the thread is obviously about something and folks pop up and say shit like "Day 0". You not low
Yeah. I know I have to find the line that I'm comfortable with. I'm saying it's difficult to know where to draw that line, so I understand where "think of the devs" people are at least coming from.
This is the underlying idea behind every "think of the devs" argument and I don't understand where it comes from. Why would developers be getting bonuses per sale? Sure, maybe the leads and some other people tangentially involved might benefit once everything trickles down, but the code monkeys aren't, the contractors certainly aren't. They're already getting paid (presumably) just coming in and doing work. God, could you imagine how much more lucrative developing would be if every salaried employee and hourly contractor was making sale bonus on top of their pay?
They're not getting the bonuses, it's the suits that get the bonuses. That's who you're rewarding under this logic.
This too. You (speaking generally) don't actually care about the developers, no more so than you care about managers or salespeople or whoever else. And it's not really supposed to be your job to be concerned that every single person in a major corporation is keeping employed or contracted or whatever. It's telling that this only comes up when it comes to defending something bad, because when everything's going fine you don't care.
And sure, the conversation does change a bit when it comes to indies or true independents like Toby Fox, but even then that moniker isn't all-encompassing. WayForward is constantly heralded as an indie darling but they ain't exactly small.
I agree, but I still feel bad for the devs. I'm just not going to buy their game based on a property synonymous with transphobia because of them. Definitely not supporting the wizarding world rn. But I don't think it's the devs' fault, they didn't know when they signed up for the job.
The point of the thread is that devs are salaried employees for big corporations. They most likely won't be seeing a single cent of the millions of dollars any given game does. Even if they do, the bigoted person that serves as the licensee will have her pockets lined, because she has the upper hand on the franchise. Therefore, it is unfair to use them as a shield for making questionable decisions.
Thank you! I was just thinking about how we need a thread like this after yesterday's Harry Potter thread.
Empathetic or apathetic? This isn't directed at you in particular, but I don't think that sort of justification has ever sat well with me. The response to other injustices existing should not be avoiding doing the bare minimum one can do when faced with open, obvious cases of it happening. "I don't care" would seem like a more honest, genuine sentiment underlying such an argument. Or maybe there are people who think, "I don't care about more serious issues, so why would I care about this?" I guess arguments against people doing something rather than silent complicity can sometimes be a projection of guilt for said apathy.
Sincere question on how to avoid bans etc: Can I say on ERA that I like the way the game is shaping up? Can I say I am curious about how it ends up with the reviewers and the gamers? What if the game ends up being great and the devs will spread the opposite kind of messages that are coming from that piece of trash Rowling? ... what if they make this platform exactly the opposite of Rowling's statements and believs? Will you banish it just because it is made in the world created by Rowling?
You're definitely correct that a lot of people, myself included, are not Game Devs and therefore we may have a misunderstanding of how their situation is. With that being established, I think there are more aspects of this issue than what you're portraying. While it's true that devs are already paid for their work on a game, when I see people talk about "poor devs" in these situations, I'm thinking of two things.
1. Games that don't sell have the potential for their studios to be closed down, for the publisher to downsize the devs, for jobs to be lost, etc. Is this not true? We've seen many instances where the devs got the short end of the stick for bad marketing, bad publisher behavior, etc.
2. The devs spend years of their lives working on something and their art may go unappreciated due to the actions of someone else.
I think you're definitely correct that some people use this argument because they are trying to justify their purchase when they really just like the product in question. But I think suggesting everyone is doing that is way off base and shouting "stop using game devs as shields" isn't going to accomplish much. It's a complicated issue that is going to draw a lot of varied approaches. At the very least I think assuming everyone is arguing in bad faith and calling for moderation and bans of a discussion point like this is uncalled for.
IMO, you can say you like whatever you want but don't be surprised if there is backlash.
No. Empathy. I feel like I should have to do something for everything listed, but find it difficult to know where to draw the line. I would feel just as bad buying Harry Potter (I won't) as I would about buying Assassin's Creed (I won't). When I go shopping, I feel just as bad about buying a non-cruelty-free bottle of shampoo as I do buying a pair of Nikes. These things are on my mind every time I make a purchase that I know has questionable outcomes or questionable means of coming to be. I haven't purchased new shoes since 2015, and I only use Paul Mitchell hair products. All I was saying is it's difficult knowing when to reel it in and how even doing everything in my power still doesn't feel like enough. It's a question rooted in anxiety, isn't it? Some people can live their lives without ever thinking about it. Some people are able to draw a line here or there. I have a hard time doing that without admitting that in order to buy anything you have to shut off at least a part of that brain function, which feels bad. I really don't understand how I was misinterpreted, but I guess I got too off-topic for the thread.
OP
OP
Nobody here can help you decide where you draw the line* (other than to point out that you should probably draw a line somewhere), but again, this is not the purpose of this thread. You can buy whatever you want, just don't use us devs as excuses to morally justify it.
*(that said, if someone's line isn't crossed by active, noxious transphobia, I, personally, can't imagine what does cross it).
Successful employees get laid off all the time.
The only things that stop it are not even guaranteed:
Getting salaried positions over contract work.
Unionization.
Working in non-profit sectors, or employee owned companies.
Being the person who actually gets the real bonuses.
Game sales won't keep you from getting laid off so a company can "restructure."
Okay here's my thing, please explain how I'm wrong.
I'm not saying "You can't boycott the game, think of the developers!" because that would mean you have an obligation to buy the game and, like, no.
What I don't understand is what the fuck a boycott is actually going to achieve, if your problem is with Rowling specifically. Rowling has infinite money. You don't have to buy a game because of the poor developers, but the developers are the only ones who are actually going to notice the game not selling. Rowling is going to shrug and tweet some bullshit again.
Rowling is going to be a rich, disgusting hate-gremlin whether I buy the game or not. So I might as well play the neat-looking Harry Potter game that some completely different people made?
I'm not saying "You can't boycott the game, think of the developers!" because that would mean you have an obligation to buy the game and, like, no.
What I don't understand is what the fuck a boycott is actually going to achieve, if your problem is with Rowling specifically. Rowling has infinite money. You don't have to buy a game because of the poor developers, but the developers are the only ones who are actually going to notice the game not selling. Rowling is going to shrug and tweet some bullshit again.
Rowling is going to be a rich, disgusting hate-gremlin whether I buy the game or not. So I might as well play the neat-looking Harry Potter game that some completely different people made?
Again, apologies for going so far off topic.
I think a ban is going too far. Warnings should happen, but they should probably be used as an opportunity to educate posters rather than punish them. If someone says, "but think of the devs," then a mod should send them a note saying how this is actually a counter-productive argument or how the argument doesn't actually take into account the developers and how game development works.
OP
OP
You can, but I would be grateful if it wasn't here. There's already a thread for the game.
What if horses start spontaneously flying? I guess we'll have to deal with that no doubt highly likely situation when it presents itself.
It also deliberately misses the point that you're not obligated to buy a game in the first place. You don't say "think of the game devs!" When a game comes out and it just sucks, or it just isnt a genre you like, or you don't have time or whatever , it's only trotted out when you want to justify overlooking morally repugnant behaviour and are trying to guilt me into doing the same. Such a bad faith argument.
For sure, capitalism is gonna capitalism. But that does also happen, though. Like game sales won't save you if a studio wants you gone. But will a game bombing not contribute to a studio wanting you gone? I just feel like I've seen so many instances of games under-performing leading to studio closures. Granted, I will admit in those instances it's never been because of any kind of boycott. I only say that presenting the issue as "devs get paid" isn't entirely accurate to the whole picture. Many situations have the devs relying on the game selling for various reasons, and I think that's what a lot of people are thinking of when they make the argument in question.
I don't believe it's always a bad faith argument. I think what makes it different from the other situations you bring up is that if a game sucks or is a genre you don't like, then you think the game devs are at fault for it ("fault" is a weird term for it not being to your tastes, but hopefully you get my meaning). The situation with something like Harry Potter is that the devs didn't do anything wrong, someone else did. Rather than compare this to a game sucking or being a disliked genre, I put it in the same category as a publisher not marketing the game well or it coming out in the same time as a major other release. These things may also cause someone to not buy a game, but not because of the actions of those making it.
Boycotts work all the time, you can look up examples.
But sending a message to game companies that this isn't a property you want to support will make an impact if enough people feel the same.
And these things always start small, they take years to get traction.
If I decide not to buy a game because it looks boring, or it's not my cup of tea, or I rage against the sudden introduction of microtransactions, no one tells me to think of the devs.
If I decide to not buy a game because the creators are mired in bigotry somehow, then magically I now have to think of the developers.
It's obvious what is happening here rhetorically.
When people en masse decide to boycott a game for ethical reasons, gamers who were excited for that game suddenly feel like baddies, and they recoil at the thought of being baddies. There is no worse thing on Earth than the sinking feeling of gamers confronting the possibility that they are not little angels. But more specifically gaming is a capitalist hellscape- the most meaningful way to interact with the medium is to buy shit. As a result, there's tension- it's either taking a stand for minorities and not buying a product, or not giving up on one's consumerist desire in a hobby fraught with rabid consumerism and thus going on ahead and buying it.
So rationalization comes into play, and that rationalization has to- at the very least- come across as an ethical position versus a selfish or capitalist one, a morally noble reason to continue consuming even with minorities telling you why a specific product is harmful to their quality of life.
Thus enter "think of the devs!" After all, you wouldn't want to harm poor artists would you?
I mean, sure, artists aren't actually an oppressed minority, and the artists themselves habitually tell us they don't like being used as a shield, and yeah outside of this situation I am habitually silent and apathetic about their shitty working conditions anyway and thus really don't care about them.....but the artists matter too!
Indeed, it's not too far removed from All Lives Matter rhetoric, where the point is to downplay a specific issue by disingenuous browbeating concerning some other superficially moral issue, usually an issue that is not as pressing as the one people are trying to refute.
It is transparent as hell. So if you see it, report it.
If I decide to not buy a game because the creators are mired in bigotry somehow, then magically I now have to think of the developers.
It's obvious what is happening here rhetorically.
When people en masse decide to boycott a game for ethical reasons, gamers who were excited for that game suddenly feel like baddies, and they recoil at the thought of being baddies. There is no worse thing on Earth than the sinking feeling of gamers confronting the possibility that they are not little angels. But more specifically gaming is a capitalist hellscape- the most meaningful way to interact with the medium is to buy shit. As a result, there's tension- it's either taking a stand for minorities and not buying a product, or not giving up on one's consumerist desire in a hobby fraught with rabid consumerism and thus going on ahead and buying it.
So rationalization comes into play, and that rationalization has to- at the very least- come across as an ethical position versus a selfish or capitalist one, a morally noble reason to continue consuming even with minorities telling you why a specific product is harmful to their quality of life.
Thus enter "think of the devs!" After all, you wouldn't want to harm poor artists would you?
I mean, sure, artists aren't actually an oppressed minority, and the artists themselves habitually tell us they don't like being used as a shield, and yeah outside of this situation I am habitually silent and apathetic about their shitty working conditions anyway and thus really don't care about them.....but the artists matter too!
Indeed, it's not too far removed from All Lives Matter rhetoric, where the point is to downplay a specific issue by disingenuous browbeating concerning some other superficially moral issue, usually an issue that is not as pressing as the one people are trying to refute.
It is transparent as hell. So if you see it, report it.
OP
OP
This is yet another rationalization for the exact same cognitive dissonance scenario. No, Rowling doesn't have infinite money. No, further HP games being made, and her relevancy as a mouthpiece of transphobia, are not a given in any possible future scenario. You are reducing quantities to zeros and infinites for your own convenience so as to avoid your personal responsibility, and that's always going to result in very flimsy moral justifications. "There's infinite votes, my vote isn't going to change the election's results, so why should I bother voting?".
Weltall Zero My question is, does your opinion of this change IF the devs were directly affected by sales? If their bonuses were directly connected to sales, how would you feel about the subject?
I think this subject is very interesting when we look outside the gaming industry. For example, is boycotting Chinese companies a good thing? Should we stop touching everything that Tencent makes since they are financing the Chinese Government?
Educate me please.
I think this subject is very interesting when we look outside the gaming industry. For example, is boycotting Chinese companies a good thing? Should we stop touching everything that Tencent makes since they are financing the Chinese Government?
Educate me please.
As long as you don't just to conclusions that everybody that said "those poor devs" like me are trying to use it as an excuse to buy the game. At least in my case, quite the contrary. I'm not touching it with a teen foot pole.
Think of the devs...oh but not Crystal Dynamics, because that game looks bad. Hope that game fails/s
It's not a banned game on ERA, and as long as your comment isn't phrased to be inflammatory towards people who take umbrage with supporting a TERF you'll be fine.
People always do this whenever a topic like this comes up, and it's always ridiculous. People didn't get banned for not liking TLOU:P2, but yet constantly pondered if they would or not in their posts.
It's not a banned game on ERA, and as long as your comment isn't phrased to be inflammatory towards people who take umbrage with supporting a TERF you'll be fine.
This game is going to be just fine even with lost sales from former Potter fans who have chosen to boycott anything Rowling puts out. The trailer from yesterday pulled huge numbers on YouTube (I clicked it expecting to see a large dislike ratio and comments about Rowling being a TERF, but it's got a huge amount of likes and comments from people saying how amazing it looks) and I saw multiple Facebook friends share it, to mostly positive comments and likes.
It would be great if everyone was aware of Rowling's transphobia and willing to boycott over it, but the reality is people either don't know, don't care, or care a little but love HP too much not to keep buying stuff.
It would be great if everyone was aware of Rowling's transphobia and willing to boycott over it, but the reality is people either don't know, don't care, or care a little but love HP too much not to keep buying stuff.
I responded to someone else with this too, but I don't think those are the same thing. In the other examples (like the game being bad, etc.) the developers have actively done something that makes the game less appealing, they are "at fault". In this instance the devs haven't done anything wrong, someone else did. I actually think the microtransactions are good example of what I mean, because that HAS happened. It was the recent Deus Ex, right? The devs didn't put them in the game, the publisher did, and I totally remember people saying things like "man, poor devs didn't choose this" and "don't judge the game off of what the publishers did".
I think this argument is more nuanced than some people make it out to be. There are definitely people that will use it in bad faith but I think it's wrong to assume that everyone is. I think plenty of people legitimately take issue with people being "punished" for someone else's crimes. From there, a further discussion should be had about consumption of media and JK's ownership of the property. I'm not saying that "think of the devs" should win any argument on this, but I really don't think it's fair to assume everyone saying this is doing so maliciously.
OP
OP
Exactly. Nobody ever says "This game deals with very important themes like depression or transgenderism; everyone should think of the devs and buy the game, even if it's in a genre you hate and won't play it!". Somehow, "thinking of the devs" is an obligation that only ever comes up for games the person actually wanted to play. The convenience of it all is so fucking hilariously transparent, which is why it makes it so infuriating for actual devs.
I have reported it in the past with no action whatsoever being taken. I appreciate that you, personally, would warn or ban the people using it, but unless and until it's reflected in the TOS, it's up to each mod to do what they want about it.