Hogwarts Legacy - Not as good as Dog Kid University

[Captain Kelsten]

So this was announced. 

 

 

 

I only made the topic for the pun, to be honest. 

 

Set at Hogwarts in the late 1800s so featuring none of the characters you know and love and JK will be pleased that there is definitely none of those bloody transgender folk because they didn't have those back then, dontcherknow. 

 

Hehe. TERF war.

 

 

[RaoulSilva]

I actually liked the look of this. 

 

Also it's multi platform including Xbox One and PS4

 

https://hogwartslegacy.warnerbrosgames.com/

[30K]

Aslong as I can join Slytherin and be the next Voldemort, I am in.

[Captain Kelsten]

Just now, 30K said:

Aslong as I can join Slytherin and be the next Voldemort, I am in.

 

It's a prequel so technically you'd be the first Voldemort. You trendsetter, you! 

[ryodi]

For a game set in the 1800s it sure has a lot of the same imagery as the movies, apart from not arriving on a train I bet there is absolutely no way to tell what year it's taking place in. It's going to sell millions. 

[Captain Kelsten]

Agreed. I've watched the trailer twice and it was only the second watch where I noticed the "late 1800s" bit. 

[Broker]

The world of Harry Potter is far more interesting than the characters, and it feels more at home in the 1800s than in the modern day. The shot of flying over the landscape looked really good. I’m surprisingly interested. Hope JK isn’t involved, the horrible TERF bastard she is.

[Captain Kelsten]

I'd agree with all of that, yeah. 

[Mogster]

I'd have loved this a year ago, before the dark times. Rowling isn't getting a penny of my money from now on though.

[ryodi]

She might not be involved in it but she has to be making money for every copy sold, a lot of comments I've seen are saying for that reason they won't touch it. 

[Broker]

Yeah I didn’t think of that, shame.

[Chindie]

This can be nickel and dimed so easily Warner Bros must have been tossing themselves off silly at the possibilities.

 

Combined with putting any more money in that witches pocket and you'd have to pay me to touch this with a bargepole.

[ryodi]

5 minutes ago, Broker said:

Yeah I didn’t think of that, shame.

 

I was going to suggest second hand but as @Chindie says I expect this game to have a volume and variety of editions and DLC it would make UbiSoft blush. 

[jonamok]

Thought that looked pretty damn good.

So I’ll pick it up and de-Covid it from CEX in a year or so for a tenner. TERF piece of shit isn’t getting a penny from me.

[Stig]

3 hours ago, ryodi said:

For a game set in the 1800s it sure has a lot of the same imagery as the movies, apart from not arriving on a train I bet there is absolutely no way to tell what year it's taking place in. It's going to sell millions. 

 

Thats cause the wizzarding world never caught on with Muggle technology. Their world, even in the 90s where the books takes place is still stuck in the 1800s. They don't use electricity, modern pens, telephones etc.

[TehStu]

Amish. Wizarding folk are Amish. 

[Bacon Horsemeat]

I've never  read any of the books and yet this was the most appealing game to me in the showcase!

[Harsin]

Pre-order at Game for exclusive Graham Linehan skin for your wizard.

[Stig]

I think before you all start spouting your hate at this game because of JKR you need to remember this game was well into development before her TERF rants and stance. As El points out, buy/dont buy the game its up to you but direct your anger to JKR not the game devs. Shes a billionaire and it won't matter a jot if you do or don't buy it, the people who made the game don't have that luxury.

 

 

[Boothjan]

6 hours ago, Stigweard said:

 

Thats cause the wizzarding world never caught on with Muggle technology. Their world, even in the 90s where the books takes place is still stuck in the 1800s. They don't use electricity, modern pens, telephones etc.

 

True. They're so far behind the times that they're only just opening a Gamestation store in Diagon Alley

[Garwoofoo]

Like others, I won’t be touching this. I get what you’re saying @Stigweard but the thought of giving any money to Rowling to support her insane rants would upset me to the point I wouldn’t enjoy the game anyway. I’ll support people who don’t spread hatred instead. 

[thesnwmn]

Yeah, I feel for the devs trapped making it for a paycheck but fuck giving anything to do with JKR money. Warner need to see the impact of the association and drop it or somehow divorce it from JKR entirely.

[Stig]

7 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

Yeah, I feel for the devs trapped making it for a paycheck but fuck giving anything to do with JKR money. Warner need to see the impact of the association and drop it or somehow divorce it from JKR entirely.

 

Neither are able to happen 

 

WB make shit tons of money of HP. The Philosopher's Stone alone passed the billion dollar mark the other week with a re-release in cinemas.

 

On the other point, you're never gonna be able to see HP without thinking JKR.

[Cheyenne]

Yeah, while I get the intent behind those tweets, I believe that rationalising it as such will allow that system to continue. For all we talk about the exploitative worker practices behind big games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Last of Us 2 and now by the looks of it everything that Ubisoft puts out, if they then go on to have absolutely gangbusters sales numbers, what pressure is there for higher-ups to properly change that system? It's still open to fuckery too, given what happened with Gearbox and Borderlands 3.

 

I'm all for wanting to support workers rights, but as a consumer I won't purchase something that I know has been produced by an exploitative company.

[Stig]

2 minutes ago, Cheyenne said:

Yeah, while I get the intent behind those tweets, I believe that rationalising it as such will allow that system to continue. For all we talk about the exploitative worker practices behind big games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Last of Us 2 and now by the looks of it everything that Ubisoft puts out, if they then go on to have absolutely gangbusters sales numbers, what pressure is there for higher-ups to properly change that system? It's still open to fuckery too, given what happened with Gearbox and Borderlands 3.

 

I'm all for wanting to support workers rights, but as a consumer I won't purchase something that I know has been produced by an exploitative company.

 

What company has been exploitative here? The issue isn't about the devs its about the owner of the IP. I think you're getting two very different things mixed up here.

[Cheyenne]

Oh, I was referring to the worker practices that were documented across the likes of Naughty Dog and Rockstar there. In this instance I liken it more to the film adaptation of Ender's Game, where the original creator is actively causing harm towards marginalised groups. I feel bad for the devs in this regard as I can't imagine Rowling is *that* involved with this, but it's still something that she would benefit financially from and I can't bring myself to support that. Doubly a shame as I've mentioend to friends for years how a create-your-own Hogwarts student Action RPG is a mint idea. If only this was 5+ years ago.

 

Now can we get this same idea but in the Avatar The Last Airbender world?

 

Edit: I would argue that the point I was trying to convey still stands. We can argue that the devs spent years working on this without Rowling's active presence, and only now is her toxicity causing harm to the brand. But if as consumers we go ahead and purchase anyway, it's a tacit acceptance of her reprehensible views because she originated the thing we like, but we've separated art from artist in our minds. But she'll still profit from it, and be kept in the spotlight.

[Uncle Mike]

That Twitter thread, as much as I understand what it's trying to say, gets confused about its point halfway through (unless you've grabbed separate threads or something). Yes, I completely agree that no-one should be directing anti-Rowling sentiment at the devs etc of the game. They are not in any way responsible for her views. But that is a different matter as to whether or not one feels that they want to buy the game.

 

If I were a Harry Potter fan who felt aggrieved at Rowling's recent behaviour, I'd seriously consider whether or not to buy this. I don't see that this is much different to not buying an Ubisoft game etc because of what that decision implies about your opinions on things. She talks about "that Ubi shit all over again" and, assuming that her point there is isolated to people sending hate content to the devs at the ground floor, I agree with that. But if I don't like what Ubi does "directing my pain and anger where it matters" is quite easily argued as not buying the game. I don't see why that's much different if you find Rowling's views problematic - she presumably makes money from me if I buy that game, and I might not want to give her that.

 

It's unfortunate for sure.

[Nick R]

It's a relief that this game is set in the 19th century, and not any earlier. If it had been set in the 1700s, we would have been cursed with the knowledge that instead of using toilets, all of the characters were just defecating where they walked, and magicking it away.

 

HP Canon says so!

[Quest]

Suggesting that not buying the game because I don't want to support a transphobic ghoul is 'actively hurting the devs and their livelihoods' is some weird, manipulative drivel. I mean, if I buy Hogwarts, that's fifty quid I'm denying another developer. Then what?

[DeciderVT]

Wish I could pos thread titles.