A call to Era's developers and mods about the "think of the poor devs" argument.

[sku]

"There's infinite votes, my vote isn't going to change the election's results, so why should I bother voting?".

Click to shrink...

I mean, if we're talking about a the presidential election and voting in a very blue state for example, it's probably not going to matter if you vote. If we're talking about a swing state, it definitely does. If we're talking about someone who has billions of dollars, your $60 is not going to make a difference. I think you're underestimating just how much money that is and making a false equivalence with your analogy here.

 

[Deleted member 31333]

I have a hard time agreeing. I'm sure within every gaming company there is some asshole with bad views. Every purchase you make will support some one in someway that doesn't deserve it.

In the Potter case Rowling does have bad views but that does not diminish the hard work the devs from that company put in to the game. They had the IP way before they knew of her views.

 

[Razmos]

Really appreciate the OP posting this and the game devs and mods that have responded. This is the kind of constructive conversation I've been dying for the forum to have

 

[HazySaiyan]

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.

Click to shrink...

But again I'm not obligated to buy a game no matter the reason, not buying a game for moral reasons and not buying it cause you won't like it are just as valid as each other. I don't owe the developers or anyone else anything

 

[Canucked]

These posts about "one vote doesn't matter" are just another way of saying "I am dismissive of the issue"

The point is, the argument "poor devs" is flawed..

 

[Lord Azrael]

It's one of those bullshit arguments along with stuff like "separate art from the artist" that no one actually touts sincerely, but rather as a way to justify their purchases

 

[Deleted member 10629]

I have a hard time agreeing. I'm sure within every gaming company there is some asshole with bad views. Every purchase you make will support some one in someway that doesn't deserve it.

In the Potter case Rowling does have bad views but that does not diminish the hard work the devs from that company put in to the game. They had the IP way before they knew of her views.

Click to shrink...

The issue is 'how come people think of the devs only when some problematic shit surfaces'.
Noone on this forum thought of the poor devs when they memed Halo's Craig to death.

 

[Fisty]

People at Avalanche will still get paid. Plenty of them are probably just as upset about this as anyone else. Contractual obligations might force them to continue making the game.

Avalanche and WB can direct their ire and discontent at Rowling when the sales figures are under expectations. No need for us to feel bad about a huge video game not meeting its sales goals.

Fuck Rowling

 

[Feign]

Don't use me as excuse to legitimize support

Click to shrink...

This isn't addressed to you specifically, I just wanted to bring something up.

I'm highlighting this portion of your sentence because it's an important feeling for anyone who wants to be a good ally. Every minority has experienced being used to support a position and give it moral authority. I've seen it used a lot on political threads recently and it's never an okay thing to do. Just own up to your own beliefs and feelings. You can say you were influenced by discussing with people in the community, but you should not use that to influence others. It's a very hard thing to describe unless you've gone through it yourself and realize the potential impact someone has by using your identity to silence another's lived experience.

 

[Watchtower]

Think of the devs...oh but not Crystal Dynamics, because that game looks bad. Hope that game fails/s

Click to shrink...

"I can excuse transphobia, but making Spider-Man exclusive is where I draw the line."

 

[Ashes of Dreams]

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.

Click to shrink...

Actually, I know many people who have said just that.

Spoiler

Please everyone buy SWERY's The Missing

But again I'm not obligated to buy a game no matter the reason, not buying a game for moral reasons and not buying it cause you won't like it are just as valid as each other. I don't owe the developers or anyone else anything

Click to shrink...

I feel like we're talking about different things? I don't think the "think of the devs" argument is asking people to buy a game they don't want to. Not buying Harry Potter because of JK Rowling is just as valid as not buying it because you don't think it looks good. My understanding of the argument comes from people saying "you also shouldn't buy Harry Potter because of this", which I think leads to a more complicated issue. In this instance, some people don't like the idea of punishing a large group of innocent people because of association with one bad person that they didn't choose to have at the time they made said association.

All I'm saying is that the argument this thread is about isn't always made in malicious bad faith as some are claiming.

 

[Ventilaator]

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?".

Click to shrink...

The votes comparison doesn't work in my mind, because with votes you have the counter argument that "My vote doesn't count" is thought by so many people that all of their votes combined would count by a lot.

But, let's say literally zero people buy this game. Cool, now the studio is closed. Okay, no more Harry Potter games. Now that we killed Harry Potter, how did this affect the actual problem people had with Rowling? She's still a rich asshole.

But okay, I still want to understand the disconnect:

Is your argument that yeah, me not buying the game isn't going to do much, but it's still a step towards a world where Harry Potter isn't one of the most successful properties in the world. The success keeps her relevant as a public figure, which is a problem because of how stupid she is. If Harry Potter things just did "okay" and were outdone by many other media properties, eventually she'd fade into obscurity, problem solved?

 

[Rouk']

Thanks for this thread

Don't have anything more to add

 

[Redcrayon]

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.

Click to shrink...

I think there's a huge difference between 'those poor devs (that are creatives assigned to work on a IP built by a TERF, and now have to watch everyone recoil from that association)', and 'those poor devs (don't punish them by not buying it'). The former is empathy or observation of poor fortune, which seems fine, although I would sideeye anyone who seemed to dance around talking about the situation itself and was seemingly only bothered by effects on devs without at least acknowledging the larger issue. The latter is saying the critics are somehow in the wrong for choosing not to support a project because the moral imperative should be to buy games to support devs, not to avoid them in solidarity with those affected by terfery, which is far, far worse.

They aren't the same, but breaking down the first point more, if someone only joins a discussion about terf bigotry to sympathise with dev poor fortune while pointedly seeeming to ignore the plight of others, then I'd say that's significantly worse in its dismissiveness and apparent priorities than someone who still manages to say 'yeah poor luck for the devs but I can't support this'. The former can be a micro aggression in that it's avoiding the elephant in the room. 'Don't punish the devs' is something else entirely in both its retargeting of moral failure and that it only seems to pop up in such topics, never for some petty argument about some
perceived mechanical failure of game design.

 

[Deleted member 10629]

The votes comparison doesn't work in my mind, because with votes you have the counter argument that "My vote doesn't count" is thought by so many people that all of their votes combined would count by a lot.

But, let's say literally zero people buy this game. Cool, now the studio is closed. Okay, no more Harry Potter games. Now that we killed Harry Potter, how did this affect the actual problem people had with Rowling? She's still a rich asshole.

But okay, I still want to understand the disconnect:

Is your argument that yeah, me not buying the game isn't going to do much, but it's still a step towards a world where Harry Potter isn't one of the most successful properties in the world. The success keeps her relevant as a public figure, which is a problem because of how stupid she is. If Harry Potter things just did "okay" and were outdone by many other media properties, eventually she'd fade into obscurity, problem solved?

Click to shrink...

Studios that do good get closed as well.

 

[Weltall Zero]

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?

Click to shrink...

I would feel like the best thing to do would be to contact these developers directly, ask them about it, and making your own choice. What I definitely don't think is the best course of action is to decide on your own that a) they are affected, b) they would rather you buy the game (two separate things, counterintuitively enough), and then c) that devs are more deserving of your empathy than e.g. transgender people. These are three leaps that I feel are unjustified or at the very least should not be taken for granted, and when they do, they are a pretty clear red flag that the person making the argument is not really concerned about their validity, as much as they are about a moral justification to play the game they want.

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.

Click to shrink...

Once again, nobody in this thread can tell you where to draw the line. This is not the purpose of this thread; nobody here can tell you whether to boycott something or not, only to stop lying to you and others about why you are or aren't doing it.

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.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I understand too well. I myself frankly feel horrible for the Harry Potter devs, and I can only imagine how soul-crushing it must have been for at least some of them to keep reading JKR's hateful tweet after hateful tweet. I'm also aware that "poor devs", by itself, can be parsed as either. It's context that determines if you're pitying them for having to make make a product tied to a hateful bigot, or for not receiving whatever hypothetical cents (typically zero) they would get from your purchase of that product (in which case you're probably not pitying them at all).

 

[Roliq]

For me, it's difficult to say, "I won't support X because of X's past transgressions," while also continuing to support Y even in the face of Y's transgressions. So, like, I don't buy this Harry Potter game because of JK Rowling's awful shit, but still buy Assassin's Creed? But then say I swear off Ubisoft and this Harry Potter game, but still buy the Last of Us 2 or any game made under stressful conditions for the workers. Swear off those and what am I left with? Nintendo games? But Nintendo has been anti-consumer for a while, so I guess I should only buy indie games. But capitalism is evil, so I really shouldn't buy anything at all. It's the same when I buy products that are cruelty free. I pause and think, but I'm still using technology made in Foxconn or Nikes made my child labor. This is why it's difficult for me.

Click to shrink...

What anti-consumer thing Nintendo has done lately?

 

[RobertM]

As a dev too, I too can make a decision of leaving a company and not supporting their practices or decisions, engineers still have a voice and sometimes the company listens and implements changes.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Studios that do good get closed as well.

Click to shrink...

And very often at that! Again, it's typically indie studios where success is tied to long-term viability.

 

[Typographenia]

Thank you for making a thread calling this out and for the great number of posts in the thread highlighting how people bring these types of arguments up when it is convenient.

I'm in favor of moderation taking action against posts/posters that continue to populate threads with these "think about the devs/artists" statements. It's dishonest and signals to posters that media is more important than human beings.

 

[Razmos]

"I can excuse transphobia, but making Spider-Man exclusive is where I draw the line."

Click to shrink...

Usually the line is microtransactions, or sub-par graphics or the sound being a little off or the game being an exclusive. The OUTRAGE over a game having microtransactions is massive compared to the outrage over racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny which just gets swept away by pointless nitpicking over pixels and silly hype posts.

I think I've ignored nearly every Cyberpunk hype accounts on this site at this point (you know the ones)

 

[sku]

These posts about "one vote doesn't matter" are just another way of saying "I am dismissive of the issue"

The point is, the argument "poor devs" is flawed..

Click to shrink...

It's not dismissive, it's trying to estimate the real impact of your actions. The people who make the "poor devs" argument may be wrong that they are having an impact on the dev's income/livelihoods by buying the game, but making that argument or the "one vote doesn't matter" argument isn't the same as dismissing someone else. Assume that it is true that one individual buying the game does not have an impact on the actions/platform/livelihood of J.K Rowling. Then what is the point of not buying a game that you want to play? Especially if the devs are hurting because of it, which again they may or may not be.

 

[Zekes]

Yeah, it's a weak, empty statement. This game could come out and be complete trash and that argument would disappear real quick

 

[HazySaiyan]

Actually, I know many people who have said just that.

Spoiler

Please everyone buy SWERY's The Missing

I feel like we're talking about different things? I don't think the "think of the devs" argument is asking people to buy a game they don't want to. Not buying Harry Potter because of JK Rowling is just as valid as not buying it because you don't think it looks good. My understanding of the argument comes from people saying "you also shouldn't buy Harry Potter because of this", which I think leads to a more complicated issue. In this instance, some people don't like the idea of punishing a large group of innocent people because of association with one bad person.

All I'm saying is that the argument this thread is about isn't always made in malicious bad faith as some are claiming.

Click to shrink...

But my point is that people only make that argument in instances like this, that's why it's hard to take the argument in good faith, it looks like a thinly veiled excuse to justify your purchase (or worse).

 

[Ventilaator]

Studios that do good get closed as well.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, and the people at the top are still rich and still unaffected, which is what I think is basically my point here.

 

[Canucked]

"I'm not buying a game because (reason)" - not a problem

"I choose to buy the game regardless of (reason) but will not minimize (reason)" - Fine, your wallet your rules, at least you aren't trotting out a shield.

"(reason) is irrelevant because of the poor devs!" - problem

 

[Deleted member 10629]

Yeah, and the people at the top are still rich and still unaffected, which is what I think is basically my point here.

Click to shrink...

 

[HandsomeCharles]

This isn't addressed to you specifically, I just wanted to bring something up.

I'm highlighting this portion of your sentence because it's an important feeling for anyone who wants to be a good ally. Every minority has experienced being used to support a position and give it moral authority. I've seen it used a lot on political threads recently and it's never an okay thing to do. Just own up to your own beliefs and feelings. You can say you were influenced by discussing with people in the community, but you should not use that to influence others. It's a very hard thing to describe unless you've gone through it yourself and realize the potential impact someone has by using your identity to silence another's lived experience.

Click to shrink...

It does sound quite hard to describe but I think you did a good job of it :)

 

[Deleted member 46489]

For me, it's difficult to say, "I won't support X because of X's past transgressions," while also continuing to support Y even in the face of Y's transgressions. So, like, I don't buy this Harry Potter game because of JK Rowling's awful shit, but still buy Assassin's Creed? But then say I swear off Ubisoft and this Harry Potter game, but still buy the Last of Us 2 or any game made under stressful conditions for the workers. Swear off those and what am I left with? Nintendo games? But Nintendo has been anti-consumer for a while, so I guess I should only buy indie games. But capitalism is evil, so I really shouldn't buy anything at all. It's the same when I buy products that are cruelty free. I pause and think, but I'm still using technology made in Foxconn or Nikes made my child labor. This is why it's difficult for me.

Click to shrink...

Your argument is chock full of false equivalency and dismissive commentary.

J.K. Rowling's TERF views are affecting legislation across the world, causing trans people to attempt suicides, and normalizing rampant transphobia to a huge number of her fans. A bunch of stressed devs on Last of Us 2 are in no way comparable to that.

Your entire argument boils down to "since I can't do everything, I'm gonna do nothing." Do you use that argument when your house is filthy and you know you won't be able to clean it all in one go? Do you use that argument when everyone in your life is toxic, so you won't cut off that one toxic friend who's always been terrible to you?

If you saw a hundred people drowning in the sea, would you go "since I can't save all of them, I'll just not save anyone"?

You are deliberately being pedantic and trying to skirt around the issue with meaningless slippery slope bullshit like "But Nintendo has been anti-consumer for a while, so I guess I should only buy indie games". Say what you mean. Own your beliefs. You're not fooling anyone by dancing around what you REALLY wanna say.

 

[Weltall Zero]

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.

Click to shrink...

I think moderation should be consistent with other such arguments that can be made out of ignorance or in bad faith. As I've said earlier in the thread, I'm 100% for warning users about it, and only banning them if they double down.

 

[Deleted member 56752]

So, a new Harry Potter game has been announced right in the middle of serial escalation of vileness from JKR transphobia (quite a feat in itself, considering her past record, but that's not the point of this thread). Among the usual bad faith arguments to justify purchasing the game, a familiar one has been popping up more often than usual; one that is rarely, if ever, actioned. Not even a warning is ever issued for it, let alone a ban; of course, this is probably why it's so popular, as opposed to other arguments that would get actioned.

Yes, I'm talking of the "think of the poor devs" argument, phrased in a handful of variants with the same underlying sentiment ("it's unfair to punish the people that worked on this game", etc.). Again, this is nothing new: it's been used to justify (and sidestep discussion of) vile shit in videogames since the dawn of time (see Kingdom Come: Deliverance, The Last Night, Cyberpunk 2077, etc.).

I think both the argument itself and the lack of moderation about it seems to arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of how game development works and how most developers profit from game sales or will have their livelyhood affected by their sales (news flash: in the case of AAA games with dozens or hundreds of salaried devs, barely at all). Much has been written in this forum about the validity of this argument as a whole, often by devs themselves, but few of it seems to ever be heeded, or have any kind of long-term impact whatsoever on either its usage or moderation.

To throw my two cents, as a dev myself: I feel offended every time someone uses fellow devs as a shield to justify their own purchasing decisions. Please do not pin your support of vile people on any of our livelyhoods; I'd rather change jobs than be the excuse for people to e.g. keep funneling money into Rowling's pockets.

That said, I shouldn't, and won't, speak for all devs. And so, I'm calling to both developers and mods to have a discussion about it, on this thread, and hopefully reach some kind of conclusion.
- To devs, I ask you to please share your thoughts on whether you think the argument holds water, both practically and morally.
- To mods, I ask you to please listen to devs, ask them any questions you may have, and take a lasting decision whether to include it on the TOS, and have it affect future moderation about it.

Click to shrink...

Are there hundreds of salaried devs or are more of them contractors?

 

[SuperShadow271]

This is a good thread. Idk if this is the same argument, but I actually talked recently to some friends of mine on Discord. They were talking about how Bug Fables was being put on Switch. I told them though it looks good, I don't want to buy it because I don't want to support Dangen (publishers of Bug Fables who are accused of not paying the developers of Devil Daggers and also their CEO is facing tons of harassment claims). They responded asking me why I'm punishing the developers of Bug Fables for something their publisher did. And while I admit, it sucks that they're losing out on a sale, I responded by saying "I don't see why I should support the punishment of the developers of Devil Daggers just because I want a different game. It's trading one suffering for another. And this way, maybe the publishers will be discouraged from continuing to do stuff like that." I personally think that if people vote with their wallets enough, we won't have to encounter situations like this in the future because horrible stuff will be discouraged

 

[ZeroMaverick]

Your argument is chock full of false equivalency and dismissive commentary.

J.K. Rowling's TERF views are affecting legislation across the world, causing trans people to attempt suicides, and normalizing rampant transphobia to a huge number of her fans. A bunch of stressed devs on Last of Us 2 are in no way comparable to that.

Your entire argument boils down to "since I can't do everything, I'm gonna do nothing." Do you use that argument when your house is filthy and you know you won't be able to clean it all in one go? Do you use that argument when everyone in your life is toxic, so you won't cut off that one toxic friend who's always been terrible to you?

If you saw a hundred people drowning in the sea, would you go "since I can't save all of them, I'll just not save anyone"?

You are deliberately being pedantic and trying to skirt around the issue with meaningless slippery slope bullshit like "But Nintendo has been anti-consumer for a while, so I guess I should only buy indie games". Say what you mean. Own your beliefs. You're not fooling anyone by dancing around what you REALLY wanna say.

Click to shrink...

Where did I say I will do nothing? Please show me where I said I will do nothing. Go on. Please show me where I said I would still buy the Harry Potter game. Did I ever once even say I am a Harry Potter fan? Have I, other than that post you quoted, even mentioned the game on this forum?

 

[Ashes of Dreams]

But my point is that people only make that argument in instances like this, that's why it's hard to take the argument in good faith, it looks like a thinly veiled excuse to justify your purchase (or worse).

Click to shrink...

That's not been my experience, personally. I've seen people make that argument when a publisher does something to the game the developers didn't intend (I used the Deus Ex microtransactions example earlier) or people trying to signal boost a game that is getting unnoticed or poorly marketed. I really don't think it's only used in these situations. I think it just appears that way because these situations is when it's most controversial, so it's one of the only times it really gets any pushback.

And I'm not even saying pushback in this instance is wrong. I think it's a legitimate discussion worth having because it's not a simple issue. I just take issue with the notion of "oh they said the wrong argument here, it definitely must be in bad faith, ban 'em".

 

[slothrop]

I don't think even making the Harry Potter IP poisonous would hurt JKR. I get the intent but I'm not so sure it can even pierce her platform or wealth at this point. It'd be nice if we could know her royalty terms for these various licensees.


But like, the idea that you should buy a game you don't want to to support devs is nonsensical? Thinking the IP is problematic is a perfectly fine reason to not buy something, even just for entirely personal consumer entertainment choice reasons. Any product you decide not to buy for any reason "harms" the creators with this thinking.

 

[Canucked]

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.

Click to shrink...

The anxiety is natural because new stuff is revealed about companies all the time. All you can do if go with your gut and make the choices you can.

 

[Necromanti]

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.

Click to shrink...

Overthinking it also seems counterproductive since there will always be more one can be doing. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[Weltall Zero]

I don't think even making the Harry Potter IP poisonous would hurt JKR. I get the intent but I'm not so sure it can even pierce her platform or wealth at this point. It'd be nice if we could know her royalty terms for these various licensees.

Click to shrink...

But making HP poisonous is much more important than "hurting" JKR. HP is Rowling's megaphone, the reason she has millions of followers and why her transphobic message has so much more reach and effect on the world than random transphobic drunkard #198387. She doesn't have million of people read her tweets because she's a millionaire; she has them because they are HP fans.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Are there hundreds of salaried devs or are more of them contractors?

Click to shrink...

This you would probably have to ask devs that have worked on AAA games. I'm a humble indie developer.

 

[Alek]

Someone asked me to post my thoughts over here so I'm going to repost what I posted in the other thread:

From someone that's worked on multiple games, and I suppose had my livelihood tied to the success of the games industry broadly, I agree.

I hear this all the time, the idea that you shouldn't skip out on the purchase of x game, because it 'punishes the developers as a whole' but the reality is that

1) The developers are not paid the value of their labour anyway...

This is a capitalist economy, workers are not at the value of their labour. Your money might ensure job security for staff working on the project, but they're not directly benefiting from it. Even if the game does well, they might be let go for some arbitrary reason, if the game does poorly, they might be kept on to work on other projects so long as the game was a technical / critical success.

There are many individual factors that influence an employees job security working in the games industry. The relationship between your individual purchase and professional success of individual or group of employees is tentative.

Besides, you can be sure that a lot of people who care about x issue less than you do, will still buy the game, your individual purchase is not an all or nothing deal for the developer. It's £50, and you can only hope that there are enough likeminded people, so as to dent their balance sheet and have someone notice.

2) The consumer is only the end point, it's not your responsibility to compensate for poor executive decisions (such as, continually working with someone, or on an intellectual property that is socially harmful).

If the developer or publisher is in that situation, its their responsibility to protect their staff. Either by dissociating from the people that are causing said social harm, or at the very least, compensating for it.

3) The consumer feedback loop is important, and keeps production under capitalism in check. If I'm a game developer working on something that's causing social harm, then I want that to be penalised.

I'm not saying that people deserve to lose their jobs, or anything like that, in an ideal world the publisher takes the hit and moves them to a new project. In an ideal world, those who did lose work as a result of consumer backlash would be supported by universal basic income, so that no one had to suffer.

Yet, we don't live in that world and it's still important that we have this feedback loop. I'm not going to buy every controversial game because some of the people working on it depend on their livelihood. I don't buy FIFA games because I think what the FIFA organisation do is unethical, I'm not going to support systems that I disagree with.

4) If you don't buy one game, you probably buy another. If you're oh so concerned about the financial well being of the senior management at whatever triple A publisher has riled everyone up, go buy another game, from anyone else. They all pay salaries. Heck, if you want to do someone a real favour, go find a cool indy game. Go give someone on Itch.io your money instead, they'll appreciate it, it'll pay their rent. You'll be paying something much more representative of the value of their labour.

 

[Deleted member 10629]

Like, even the actors that owe their carrer to the success of the movies told her to fuck off. Pretty sure you can refrain from buyiing this shit.

 

[Kyrona]

If they really wanted to think of the devs they would send their $60 to the devs through some other means instead of buying the game.

 

[Deleted member 56752]

This you would probably have to ask devs that have worked on AAA games. I'm a humble indie developer.

Click to shrink...

The idea of poor devs - to me - can be centered around that awful practice of hiring contractors and maintaining them in that role without giving them salaried benefits (health, life, dental ins etc). These people often move and then get laid off by the employer/pub. There was an article on it recently.

 

[Aeana]

Any reason someone has for not buying something is equally valid, and saying otherwise is absolute nonsense. Oh, you can't afford the game? But what about the devs, don't you care about them?

 

[HazySaiyan]

That's not been my experience, personally. I've seen people make that argument when a publisher does something to the game the developers didn't intend (I used the Deus Ex microtransactions example earlier) or people trying to signal boost a game that is getting unnoticed or poorly marketed. I really don't think it's only used in these situations. I think it just appears that way because these situations is when it's most controversial, so it's one of the only times it really gets any pushback.

And I'm not even saying pushback in this instance is wrong. I think it's a legitimate discussion worth having because it's not a simple issue. I just take issue with the notion of "oh they said the wrong argument here, it definitely must be in bad faith, ban 'em".

Click to shrink...

See personally I'd put microtransactions in the same camp, people avoid games with them in for moral reasons, and if you say "think of the devs" it's to me justifying you not caring about them. I play games with MTs in them (I just don't pay for MTs) but I don't see it as some moral obligation to play the game or get on people's case for not doing so.

Signal boosting is a different thing entirely .

 

[Costa]

Fuck TERFs, fuck JK Rowling, and people who use arguments such as "think of the devs" or "separate the art from the artist" tend to be people deflecting or feeling attacked. I agree there should be actions on that kind of sentiment.

I am a dev myself, and maybe I'm too empathetic, but I still feel bad for the devs. I mean, the game is likely going to be a success anyway but I doubt they'll see any of that success. It'll just get funneled to their superiors. But I don't think it's as simple for them as finding a new job, especially since they've likely been working with each other for years on this project, pouring passion, blood, sweat, and tears into it. They put a part of themselves into the project and they're trying to make the game as best as they can.

I think it must be incredibly demoralizing to see the IP they're working for belongs to such a horrible person, and especially seeing some of the responses the game is getting. Maybe not all of them, and a ton probably don't give a shit either way. But I've personally been in a position where I've done work for a POS boss who will be making all of the bank and I had nowhere else to go. I loved working with my co-workers and didn't want to let them down. I did my work as best as I can in spite of our shitty boss. Despite that, we were eventually all let go. It fucking sucked man.

But anyway, don't let my experiences be a defense of this argument. I get the anger and frustation towards this game. Boycotting the game is completely justified, which is what I am doing as well. But as a person, trying to do the best work they can for something they believe in, it would feel like I'm being punished for actions outside of my control.

 

[Nepenthe]

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.

Click to shrink...

A developer making a game in a genre I don't like is not a "fault." Like, it's not a "failure" that developers make car simulators like Gran Turismo and Forza Motorsport. It's a difference in interests. I am just a person who will never buy that kind of game because it's boring, even if I can recognize that within the confines of its design and intentions, that Gran Turismo and Forza Motorsport are still good games. No one is telling me to buy it because I have to support the devs, that I have to think about their livelihood.

That's the game of capitalism. Game developers aren't owed financial support from the audience. I don't have to buy anything I don't want to, for any reason, because the fact of the matter is if those reasons are ones concerning the ethics of the creators in question, it is still functionally no different from someone declining to buy the game for any other reason anyway. A lost sale is a lost sale; so why do people insist on badgering minorities into thinking about the poor artists and not the guy who hates microtransactions?

Also, my post doesn't concern itself with intent because I think we should be concerned less with intent- with whether or not we are good or bad people- and whether or not the consequences of our actions result in positive or negative consequences for the downtrodden. If you're making arguments that, at the end of the day, put artists' livelihoods ahead of trans lives, I really don't care that you "didn't do it maliciously." Transpeople are still getting fucked over, and the focus on intent only serves to reroute energy from the real issue here, which is money going into the pockets of a TERF with massive amounts of social clout.

 

[Deleted member 46489]

Where did I say I will do nothing? Please show me where I said I will do nothing. Go on. Please show me where I said I would still buy the Harry Potter game. Did I ever once even say I am a Harry Potter fan? Have I, other than that post you quoted, even mentioned the game on this forum?

Click to shrink...

You found it totally acceptable to compare the effects of Rowling's transphobia TO some devs being stressed on The Last of Us 2 TO Nintendo being anti-consumer.

Your entire argument is built to say- "Obviously you can't expect me to stop buying stuff completely, even though capitalism is EVIL. See how ridiculous that sounds? I can't stop using tech. So I won't stop buying NIntendo's games. I won't stop buying Ubisoft games. I won't let social issues be a part of my purchasing decisions. Including the present case."

If you were trying to argue something else, please enlighten me.

You are trying to use the slippery slope logical fallacy to create a false equivalency. If that wasn't your intention, I must say you did a remarkable job unintentionally.

 

[Asbsand]

I think the poor devs are sometimes conscious of the problems their games cause socially and just aren't acting on it, and maybe in a case like this game, more than it draws fans of Harry Potter lore and canon (not JK Rowling's recent bigotry), but I think more than that there's an issue of where the work is, how settled you are there and the struggle of having to put up with a problematic project requesting that you resign or quit. Most companies are hierarchal, which means whoever is the highest paid has the power of truth and whoever is under that has only influence as truth to power. Which in turn means, anyone who disagrees that this game should've been made, who is otherwise a good worker, can't really do anything but call it quits, or speak up and get silenced or ignored.

So, in a way I don't see it as "all those poor devs" but I see it as a problem where maybe people do have problems, many in fact, but this is the choice between their life stability (which they might've been lucky to have; game jobs at AAA studios is an opportunity for anyone) or taking a moral stand and risking everything; your family, your wealth and function in society. Being jobless isn't great, especially not lately. I imagine though that there's already people who have left Avalanche because they took a stand against JK Rowling and her fiction, and having to promote it as a game project.

 

[Weltall Zero]

The idea of poor devs - to me - can be centered around that awful practice of hiring contractors and maintaining them in that role without giving them salaried benefits (health, life, dental ins etc). These people often move and then get laid off by the employer/pub. There was an article on it recently.

Click to shrink...

Entirely outside the purpose of this thread, but, in my opinion at least, if you care very much about devs and especially contractors being exploited, what you should do is to not buy AAA games, especially from companies infamous for these practices. What buying AAA games does is to encourage these practices, not curb them.

Again, this is a very long and complicated discussion that has been and should be handled elsewhere.

Someone asked me to post my thoughts over here so I'm going to repost what I posted in the other thread:

From someone that's worked on multiple games, and I suppose had my livelihood tied to the success of the games industry broadly, I agree.

I hear this all the time, the idea that you shouldn't skip out on the purchase of x game, because it 'punishes the developers as a whole' but the reality is that

1) The developers are not paid the value of their labour anyway...

This is a capitalist economy, workers are not at the value of their labour. Your money might ensure job security for staff working on the project, but they're not directly benefiting from it. Even if the game does well, they might be let go for some arbitrary reason, if the game does poorly, they might be kept on to work on other projects so long as the game was a technical / critical success.

There are many individual factors that influence an employees job security working in the games industry. The relationship between your individual purchase and professional success of individual or group of employees is tentative.

Besides, you can be sure that a lot of people who care about x issue less than you do, will still buy the game, your individual purchase is not an all or nothing deal for the developer. It's £50, and you can only hope that there are enough likeminded people, so as to dent their balance sheet and have someone notice.

2) The consumer is only the end point, it's not your responsibility to compensate for poor executive decisions (such as, continually working with someone, or on an intellectual property that is socially harmful).

If the developer or publisher is in that situation, its their responsibility to protect their staff. Either by dissociating from the people that are causing said social harm, or at the very least, compensating for it.

3) The consumer feedback loop is important, and keeps production under capitalism in check. If I'm a game developer working on something that's causing social harm, then I want that to be penalised.

I'm not saying that people deserve to lose their jobs, or anything like that, in an ideal world the publisher takes the hit and moves them to a new project. In an ideal world, those who did lose work as a result of consumer backlash would be supported by universal basic income, so that no one had to suffer.

Yet, we don't live in that world and it's still important that we have this feedback loop. I'm not going to buy every controversial game because some of the people working on it depend on their livelihood. I don't buy FIFA games because I think what the FIFA organisation do is unethical, I'm not going to support systems that I disagree with.

4) If you don't buy one game, you probably buy another. If you're oh so concerned about the financial well being of the senior management at whatever triple A publisher has riled everyone up, go buy another game, from anyone else. They all pay salaries. Heck, if you want to do someone a real favour, go find a cool indy game. Go give someone on Itch.io your money instead, they'll appreciate it, it'll pay their rent. You'll be paying something much more representative of the value of their labour.

Click to shrink...

Thank you so much for this post, GungJoe; very, very much appreciated. <3

And with this I'm stepping away from the computer for a while!