The problem was what the discourse transformed into. For HL, the issue was less about don’t play the game to fight transphobia, rather don’t play the game to prove allyship. I don’t agree with this justification and find it more alienating. Comparing the art protest to the HL boycott is not the same. In both cases, they garnered attention for the issues. Unfortunately, HL had more normie appeal while being appropriated by the far right and TERFs as the transphobic game. I believed that this boycott was counterproductive because we essentially fought on “their” terms rather than our own. There were many other things we could have done to have made the boycott more effective, but we did not do these things. :/ Everything was about appealing folks to other games, but those other games were not HL. This lack of reading the room cost the boycott its power. The IP is strong and rather than taking advantage of it, we decided to drop it. Shot in the foot. Others however did the Hasan thing. Theres more that could have been done other than play and shit on the game, and donating to charities.
I have a few polite disagreements: 1. Supporting a doomed *cause* (Just Stop Oil) vs supporting a doomed *boycott* (Nike, Hersheys) are two different things. 2. There's a difference between playing a game in a positive vs a negative way. Few small games got popular over massive criticism, and games like Forspoken are a public laughingstock And a couple opposing points you address that could be better steelmanned: 1. According to a few people, Rowling would only receive so much money for the game, meaning *additional* copies wouldn't give her extra money. I couldn't find evidence either for or against this, but it seems feasible. 2. Vaush never wanted to play the wizard game, although he was very ambivalent towards people who did want to play it (eg Hasan)
The problem was what the discourse transformed into.
For HL, the issue was less about don’t play the game to fight transphobia, rather don’t play the game to prove allyship. I don’t agree with this justification and find it more alienating.
Comparing the art protest to the HL boycott is not the same. In both cases, they garnered attention for the issues. Unfortunately, HL had more normie appeal while being appropriated by the far right and TERFs as the transphobic game.
I believed that this boycott was counterproductive because we essentially fought on “their” terms rather than our own. There were many other things we could have done to have made the boycott more effective, but we did not do these things. :/ Everything was about appealing folks to other games, but those other games were not HL. This lack of reading the room cost the boycott its power. The IP is strong and rather than taking advantage of it, we decided to drop it. Shot in the foot. Others however did the Hasan thing. Theres more that could have been done other than play and shit on the game, and donating to charities.
I have a few polite disagreements:
1. Supporting a doomed *cause* (Just Stop Oil) vs supporting a doomed *boycott* (Nike, Hersheys) are two different things.
2. There's a difference between playing a game in a positive vs a negative way. Few small games got popular over massive criticism, and games like Forspoken are a public laughingstock
And a couple opposing points you address that could be better steelmanned:
1. According to a few people, Rowling would only receive so much money for the game, meaning *additional* copies wouldn't give her extra money. I couldn't find evidence either for or against this, but it seems feasible.
2. Vaush never wanted to play the wizard game, although he was very ambivalent towards people who did want to play it (eg Hasan)