Hogwarts Legacy sales top 22 million
Hogwarts Legacy sales top 22 million
Hogwarts Legacy has sold more than 22 million units, publisher Warner Bros. Games and developer Avalanche Software announced.
Further proof that being "cancelled" isn't a thing, never has been.
Sure, a tiny few experience legal consequences for illegal actions. But in general, cancellation is just not a thing.
I think being cancelled can affect small groups and fan bases, but doesn't have any impact on the larger population.
It didn't help that boycotting it didn't make much sense. The game itself goes out of it's way to make sure it's "inclusive", actually boycotting it will hurt a lot of people involved in the game more than it would hurt Rowling. Supposedly the royalties are very minor for stuff that doesn't actually include any of the Harry Potter storyline, and JK Rowling is already richer than God.
Yeah, I noticed the same thing, in fact I think the game was a bit too aggressive on that part, starts becoming too "in your face" if it makes any sense. But still, told that to a few friends and they still refuse to even pirate it, can't say I understand.
The (Dixie) Chicks.
You're talking about The Chicks, who just finished a tour in 84 locations, including 6 nights in Vegas?
Yeah, they took a pretty hard hit for publicly stating their political beliefs, but like true artists, they then went to make a chart-topping, award-winning song about the controversy, kept working on their craft, and just finished a tour that doubtless made them millions (I tried to find an exact number, but couldn't).
Why yes, I do have some relatives who made the comment "Go woke, go broke" wrt The Chicks. This certainly could have gone very differently.
That's actually a great example.
I come back to this video pretty often
I think JK Rowling is still canceled, but... HP stuff is very special to a lot of people. They're able to separate her from the world she created I think.
If asked point blank most would probably be aware of and disagree with her stance on trans people.
Down vote me all you want, I know my opinion is the majority, just not for Lemmy people.
Regardless of the controversy, this was just an underwhelming game. The quest design was awful and the combat was repetitive.
If it wasn’t using one of the most well known IPs in modern history it would be a financial flop and have terrible ratings.
Different take:
What we got was a pilot, an experiment to see if it is even worth going all in on the 'Portkey Games' route in the future. Sure, there's young adults out there who played the old school movie tie-in games of the GameCube era. But they aren't enough of an audience to warrant spending big on something that might flop.
Most of the game's systems and gameplay are underwhelming, yes. And they could probably have spent some time writing a more compelling story with a lot less chosen one bullshit tropes in it. But they did manage to build a wizarding world that convincingly lets you immerse yourself in it. The game has a real sense of scale to it, unlike the older games, and my favourite thing is just walking around looking at details and letting my own fantasy do the rest.
Now here's the thing. They did a succesful little experiment: They made a game that isn't outright hated and lives up to some of the dreams we had as kids playing the original movie games. And they managed to do so without defaulting to the shitty loot box practises so many publishers are known for this day and age. Especially WB stuff. It all depends on what they do next.
From here they can go one of two ways: Either take the easy route and create a carbon copy of this game, rake in some profits and watch as people start seeing the cracks and slowly lose interest. Or take it seriously, spend the extra attention and actually improve upon anything this game has to offer and stand to gain even more revenue.
Chances are they take the first path and everything comes crashing down, and they'll blame fans for losing interest. If they do opt to go the second route there is a lot of work to be done. Interested to see where it goes either way.
I highly doubt it. Why would they try to make a better game when a copy paste collect-a-thon action adventure light rpg with stealth and crafting elements with Harry Potter twist ensures huge sales. What incentive do they have?
If it wasn’t using one of the most well known IPs in modern history it would be a financial flop and have terrible ratings.
That’s everything though, a good unknown game will always do worse than a bad known game
Thanks. This is the first review I’ve seen of the actual game... glad somebody rated it as a stand alone product on its own individual merit rather than by all the other noise around its release.
I really hope that the next game will have a social sim aspect like Bully, where you have to go to class and build friendships
Exactly this. I'd've taken those niche depth mechanics over that huge mostly-empty world and hundreds of collectibles in a heartbeat. Free-roam, yes but a HP game doesn’t need to be a Ubisoft-a-thon
What, you dont even need to go to class at all?
Just sometimes when learning a new spell, but not as a reoccurring, routinely timetable-sequel thing
Not really surprising considering how absolutely massive of an IP Harry Potter is.
I've been waiting to upgrade my PC to play it properly. Looks very fun, at least for most of the game (have heard it gets a bit repetitive)
It is a fun game. If you are someone who is into HP, then it is probably really enjoyable.
I'm playing it at the mo on the recommendations of friends. As some comments here say, the quest system is a bit goofy, but I'm enjoying it. It has the same 'go here do this' and collectibles vibe as the recent Spider Man from Sony. I'm fine with that! Lots of puzzles, maps, treasure hunts, collectibles and so forth.
B-b-but the boycott!
I remind been in work (very geeky environment) with people patting themselves on the back about the boycott. There's an odd silence that comes when a very vocal anti Rowling person bangs the drum but its the usual very loud minority.
The odd silence is a vocal minority desperately trying to not be ignored by people who would want them dead. And Rowling is the one exception to put your money where your mouth is not mattering. She quite literally said people buying her shit proves she's right.
So thanks for making her point. We get you don't care about trans people, makes it easy for us to see who to not turn to.
Anyway how many awards did this game win? Congrats on selling your dignity on another open world game that you won't be playing anytime soon now that the hype is down.
The odd silence is the other people in the office who just remain silent or they'll get chewed out by the very vocal minority. I feel for the trans community, you lot are a minority within a minority but have a terrible image because of the screaming idiots in your camp garner all the attention.
However it's objectively funny that the boycott catastrophically failed despite all the initial clout and hype for the boycott. Same thing when right wingers call for boycotts.
"this person is still successful despite being shitty against you and I find it hilarious you are mad that people like her want you dead"
-You
I think it's funny when boycotts fail in general, I don't care what genitals you have or don't, what your pronouns are. It's objectively hilarious when boycotts fail, especially when the groups are so freaking confident it will work.
It's a mediocre video game. I'm supremely disappointed in those who call themselves allies but can't do the equivalent of picking a different coffee brand. I know you find us annoying. Just imagine how annoying I find contrarions and pissants like yourself when my rights and safety are stripped away using the clout and profits of shit like this game.
Oh, wait. My bad. I asked you to empathize. I know you're incapable, I shouldn't have bothered.
I, along with many others, just don't think Rowling is transphobic. I don't see any evidence that she hates trans people, just that she doesn't agree with some of the extreme trans activists takes, just like most people who aren't extreme.
This doesn't mean there's no such thing as being canceled, but I do think that it shows more and more people have caught on to some of tactics that are used to cancel others. It's going to continue to have less impact as time goes on, which is good, imo. Cancelation has its merits, but we're coming out of an overreach period.
Some of the things that she has said have been a little dogwhistly, and she doesn't come right-out and say "Trans people are icky and I hate them", but if you look at what she's said/done publically you should be able to see why people are mad at her.
I'm not trans, but when you look at and compare it to other minorites that have had to fight to be accepted, it lines up with what they had to go through.
This article has a pretty decent timeline:
https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timelineHere's an even shorter version:
It starts with Joanne puiblically liking the works of someone who is saying the quiet parts out loud.
This person's work contract ended and it was not renewed.
Joanne then publically claimed that the scary trans people are getting women fired.About a month later she is using menstration the line in the sand about what it means to be a women. She then mixed up sex and gender, and implies that trans people are erasing cis people.
Daniel Radcliff then publically posts "Transgender women are women, any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I."
Joanne then puts out her Essay:
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
It's very "Trans people are scary, think of the children, trans-inclusive language hurts real women, accepting trans-people means that bathroom rapes are going to go up"Another month goes by and she then claims that "we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people". Trans people aren't real, they are just confused gay people.
A couple months later she puts out a book where the serial killer is a "Man in a dress", once again "trans people are scary and dangerous".
I think the issue comes down to what is pushed as transphobic. We have this issue a lot right now, where certain terms have been stretched out to encompass more and more. The major downside to this tactic is that eventually you cram enough people under that term that no one cares anymore.
Nothing she's said has lined up with "trans people are icky and I hate them". Trans woman are trans women. They're not women. The trans label is there to diffentiate the two terms, because biological women are different than tran women are, and we require terms that alert us to differences when we discuss things.
For example, her character in a dress in a serial killer who dresses up as a woman not because he feels like a woman on the inside - it's so he can lure victims in. Hes not fundamentally "a man in a dress" hes "a man who puts on a dress for a short, specific purpose. He doesnt wear a dress when hes not luring in victims. He in no way thinks, acts or feels like a woman or a trans woman. He does not wish to be one, and puts on a dress and wig for the sole purpose of committing a crime. In my eyes, anyone who looks at that character and thinks he in any way is tied to trans is the actual transphobe.
Your list is examples of things she said, and then immediately putting words into her mouth that are the worst possible interpretation you can make, and interpretations can easily be wrong.
Again, most rational people who have gone through what she's said don't see transphobia there.
Also, we're also seeing the effects of pushing physical transitions on younger people in detransitioners that are speaking out about it. It's not crazy to understand that gay people who are confused can easily make the wrong decision that can never be made right again. Understanding that and approaching the issue with extreme caution is a good thing.
It says more about you that you're incapable of seeing hate unless the person spreading it literally says the quiet part out loud. Rowling does the bare minimum, couching her hate in the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability, and you just gobble it up. She freely associates with TERFs and White Nationals, simply because they agree with her views on transwomen.
The UK has made a hard turn against trans rights in the last decade, and Rowling had been the driving force behind that reversal.
You're making up a quiet part that you can't possibly know is true, that's the problem. You're reading into something that's not there. Again, you do you, but most people outside of the trans activist community aren't going to agree, including some trNs people themselves.
Agreeing with someone isnt gobbling anything up, it's just coming to the same conclusion and not believing that transphobia encompasses what she is.
The UK made a hard turn because they saw the damage that treating disphoria physically first and mentally second is having. There were dire consequences. I agree there's going to be some overreach in response to the overreach from what more of the extreme activists have done. I think we'll eventually get to a good place and figure it out, but until then, things will get rocky.
This is after Sweden, who was first to start the extreme treatments we've seen, pulled back as well.
I mean, she's straight up said she thinks that trans women are not women and that she believes being transgender is a mental illness. She said she'd rather go to jail than be forced to call trans people by their preferred pronouns (which is insane and not a real scenario that would happen, but still telling nonetheless lol). She's buddied up with some far-right extremists, one of which has likened being transgender to doing blackface and another that said trans men should be sterilized.
I also don't agree with extremist takes on either side, but promotion of trans erasure and mocking/minimizing/invalidating a margininalized group that is frequently at risk of being targeted for violence are not victimless acts.
I kind of agree but I can't really look past her supporting literal (actually transphobic) fascists because they agree with her
I haven't seen her support any fascists, though I can't say for sure she hasn't spoken with any on twitter. Supporting someone is different than agreeing with one thing they say though. I agree with lots of people that vanilla ice cream is delicious. It doesn't mean I support everyone who agrees with that statement.