Vincent Kinian

1. Despite this being the clearest and most necessary (it's not enough for people not to buy the game; simply discussing the game on algorithmically driven social media platforms like Twitter also generates quite a lot of revenue around the Harry Potter name) illustration possible that there truly is no ethical consumption under capitalism, it's amazing to see people still lining up to either carve out exceptions to this rule or contest it altogether. More to the point, it's almost entirely been streamers and direct consumers making this effort. Now you could build that into an indictment of pop media culture in general: people have so deeply internalized their identification with a brand that they see any criticism of it as an attack on their moral character. Or maybe you could tease out an angle about how infantalizing that culture is, given the "important childhood experience" angle that's definitely at work.
   
   I, on the other hand, see this more in terms of something like class position. Streamers have a noted material interest in playing whatever game they believe will attract the most viewers at the moment when it will do just that, and...well, I think Upton Sinclair can handle it from here.
   
   As for the consumer? I suspect they just find something convenient in identifying as a consumer, something controversy implicitly threatens. If private enjoyment really is a good in itself (and it's easy to see why somebody might want to believe that), then disturbing it becomes an intolerable act that should ideally be stopped.

2. Hey, speaking of professionals being beholden to doing what attracts an audience, how about video game writers. The question of whether outlets are going to review this game has been looming over the scene for months if not years now, and to give credit where credit's due, I think (hope) sites like Polygon and Kotaku - sites that, whatever their commitments in practice, at least want to see themselves as socially and politically progressive - will do the right thing and refuse to review the game. Unfortunately, I can also see them covering the controversy before, during and after this debacle (which would defeat the point of not reviewing the game in the first place), and in any case, I can DEFINITELY see less overtly political, more general readership facing sites like GameSpot and IGN reviewing the game regardless of whatever criticisms their readers or staff might make. Keep in mind at least one of those sites ran an article on how to mint your own NFTs.
   
   With all this in mind, I think there be some real value in drafting a list of questions on the issue - "Does your site plan to review this game?", "Does it plan to run any longform articles, EG features or essays?" "Are you aware of J.K. Rowling's political stances/activities?" - and sending them to every outlet in a position to write about the game. (This shouldn't be interpreted as an exhaustive list.) Of course, one random writer sending an easily ignored email doesn't hold any real power, and I'm not sure how you'd organize enough writers in this space to lend this course of action power.

Because I have nothing better to do today, I decided to draft this hypothetical email up:

I should clarify this isn't set in stone. If you want to edit it, go for it. And if anybody wants to send this email themselves (or possibly even organize enough people into something that could send the email on their behalf), again, go ahead.

Well, looks like we know where at least one outlet stands...sort of. (Source.)

I'll update with other outlets as they become relevant.