Rant: Frustration Related to Ethics of Games Companies
Hi, everybody! Sorry for the rant!
I'm just posting this as a combination of question and vent. Does anyone else here feel frustrated by the current ethical dilemmas of purchasing games from certain companies? My partner is very tuned into the various ethical mishaps happening in the world and keeps me apprised of which companies are doing shitty stuff and which people/companies I should stop supporting. This is important to remember, but it is also frustrating to see how many companies out there are doing bad things.
This is a very "first world problem," but it's frustrating just how many games out there look cool, but I can't play them because it'd be giving those companies/people money. The biggest examples are Activision Blizzard, J.K. Rowling, and Wizards of the Coast. I think Baldurs Gate 3, for example, looks so awesome, but I don't feel comfortable playing it because my partner has alerted me that some of that money would go to Wizards. I feel somewhat frustrated that the discussion around these issues has evaporated when the games are released; it's as though people stopped caring about the bad things these companies/people did. To be entirely honest, I'm not sure if I myself would be able to keep myself accountable if my partner doesn't remind me of it; I think I may have bought the games like everyone else because of how fun they look, and how much they remind me of games I grew up on.
On a similar note, as my partner is working on becoming a game developer, he follows the state of game development and tells me about it, which seems bleak. I mourn the old studios that I used to have a lot of enjoyment for, like BioWare and the others that EA ate up.
Thanks for reading all of this. :) I wish things were more hopeful, I suppose. My partner urges me to support indie developers, so I'm trying to move in that direction. Does anyone have any recommendations on staying hopeful, given the current state of entertainment?
TL;DR: I'm frustrated by the current largely-unethical state of the games industry and want to know how I can regain some hope about it.
Indies really are the way to go for both customers and developers if they want a better, more ethical and respectful environment. It is a risky career path, but given how many major publishers treat the developers under them, it's not like sticking with mainstream would lead to a comfortable stable livelihood either.
Baldur's Gate 3 really put me in a dilemma, but I think I'll ultimately buy it because I want to support Larian Studios more than I want to avoid Wizards of the Coast. I wouldn't trust Wizards enough to get One D&D and the likely tabletop lootbox hell they are scheming, but BG 3 is delivering a good product that deserves support. Though buying the Divinity games is an alternative if you don't want WotC to get any money.
Sadly indies are not insular to those issues, here are recent examples:
The thing is that, there's always a right wing crowd swarming those communities that they'd downplay, gaslight, and of course play a part in the gaming → far right neo nazi pipeline
I'd say do it in case per case basis
Yeesh! I had heard some of that but not the Factorio one. Yeah unfortunately not all indie devs are cool.
Bizarre to see how gamers are lured into conservatism when conservatives keep throwing games under the bus when gun violence is mentioned.
I'm a former game dev and I can tell you, at least from my experience, there was no golden age where developers and customers were treated fairly. It's the primary reason why I left. Hell, I once interviewed at a place that showed off how the offices had beds in them, as if that was a selling point.
That said, I'd probably be someone who you'd consider "doesn't care about the bad things these companies did." I'm just too fuckin' old to be mad about shit all of the time. If I was only going to patronize folks and companies who matched my own set of ideals and ethics, I would be more than just gameless. I would be homeless and penniless as well.
What I do is simply detach products and services from those who provide them. I can buy a thing from a person I find distasteful. I don't have to invite them out for a drink and I certainly don't have to avoid taking them to task for their poor or unethical behavior. Moreover, ethics and behavior are saleable. If someone comes around who offers something comparable to something from someone I find distasteful, then I can go patronize the new person instead. I have jumped ship from many service and product providers for that very reason. If you want my business, then you better ensure you're either the only person who can provide what I want or ensure you're the person I want to buy from.
If you're not averse to piracy, you could go that route.
If you are averse to piracy, and have consoles to play on, buy used copies of games (where it's even possible to) - the publisher sees no proceeds from that.
Failing that... There's a lot of great indie games out there that aren't problematic. I know it feels like you're missing out if you aren't playing whatever the current big AAA game is, but really, there's plenty of indie games that are just as good, or that you'd get just as much enjoyment out of.
I'd recommend against piracy in either case. Part of the action you take as a consumer is not just refusing to give Bad Company A your money, but you're also giving Bad Company A's product less attention and mindshare while spending money and attention on Good Company B's product, encouraging more of Good Company B's product to be made. The likes of Ubisoft, EA, Activision-Blizzard, etc. used to be the companies that made games that a lot of us loved, but they trimmed their portfolios of their less profitable (note that I didn't say "unprofitable") games, which means they're not scratching all of the itches they used to scratch, and they've diluted a lot of the games that we still enjoy with business models that encroach right up to the point where they annoy or anger us. So if the business models they're using now piss you off, it's important to stop supporting those and instead show that buying a great product at a fair price is what we as customers want.
For me, if a game requires an internet connection instead of letting us host our own servers or run a LAN or run local play totally offline, I don't buy it, I don't pirate it, I don't play it. I just move on to games that respect their customers.
You know, it's funny, I used to feel big FOMO when it came to games I wanted to play. Then the Epic Game Store came along, and started paying for timed exclusives, and I adopted the philosophy that I'd just wait for the games to get a Steam release.
There's only been a handful of instances where I even bothered buying them once they came to Steam; turns out that by not buying them when they're being hyped by all of the new release marketing, I've mentally moved on to other things by the time they come to Steam, and I just don't feel the need to buy them anymore. I just needed help getting past that initial mental hurdle.
The same applies to companies whose philosophies I object to; as long as I have a reason to mentally justify not buying them initially, I just lose interest in the products entirely very quickly.
People would often respond to me with the sentiment that "games aren't fungible", which is true, but there's so much good stuff out there that something else will be pretty close to the itch you're looking to scratch, great in its own ways, and you don't have to feel lousy about supporting it. Like if Diablo IV feels scummy, I hear Grim Dawn is great. That kind of thing.
Frankly, it depends on how micro or macro you're willing to think, and how much that personally bothers you. At the end of the day we live in multiple systems of oppression and exploitation that make it very hard - and sometimes outright impossible - to properly consume something without being unethical. From The Good Place:
From my personal point of view, there's a few choices. The first is, you can just not consume. There's more than enough indie games, as well as plenty of old-AAA games that won't directly benefit their companies anymore. You can also pirate, if that's not an online game.
From a more cynical point of view, your individual purchase (and, frankly, even a organized boycott) won't make a difference to these companies. Modern capitalism doesn't rely on genuine profit, just on the idea that an IP or corporation is profitable, and that's enough to attract investors and investments, and inflate its share price as well as its value in the eyes of capitalists. This is a gross oversimplification, and generally only applies to the largest names, but still sadly relevant.
So at the end of the day, you have to think to yourself: Does it bother you to consume something? I won't buy or play anything related to Harry Potter media because JKR disgusts me, but I see no issue with indirectly supporting WotC. Likewise, while the decision to not support Blizzard products is very easy (they don't really make that many), I can't say their scandals forced me to stop playing any more than their lack of dedicated support to their products.
There's rarely an absolute moral good when it comes to consuming products, even indie ones; Publishers like Chucklefish and Dangen had their own share of abuse and neglect, and sometimes individual creators are just, well, assholes.
Have you tried growing up?
No, seriously.
You support more unethical bullshit buying avocados and meat than you do video games. To even give the issues you’ve mentioned as much attention as you have, while ignoring the much less ethical things you purchase far more often, shows how disingenuous and shallow your objection to those products really is, and it leads to more problems than it solves.
For example, Balders Gate 3 is a pretty fantastic game, with no micro transactions or as far as I can see any other form of end user manipulation.
They’re also one of the few studios I’ve seen recently that the devs dont seem burnt out on, which says a lot about how they were managed.
And they just license the content from wizards, to go “oh they’re tangentially related so it’s evil!” (Which you also did with hogwarts legacy) denies all the hundreds and thousands of passionate developers of a chance.
Indie games are a great alternative, true, but as others have said indies can be as toxic as the big companies when they want to be. Not to mention the long term consequences of that direction being developers can’t work together to make AAA games anymore, because according to your rules if a shithead makes it to the top everyone else’s work should be thrown away.
So, what, unless OP somehow changes their habits to buy literally zero of anything produced by unethical companies it's not even worth trying?
Not sure they're the ones that need to grow up and be less edgy...
OP did not indicate anywhere what kind of food they buy. You are judging them without knowing their habits.
You’re right I am, but I do stand by it.
Mine is simply a more specific example of the “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” argument that has been repeated here many times.
It was a reasonable to assume OP frequently purchases food
You mean the argument saying we cannot fix the system without abolishing the system? You're using it to instead justify the inequities of the system and henceforth ignoring them because you completely missed the point of the phrase?
You specifically mentioned avocados and meat. I know some people who only buy local food and do not buy meat. Your reasoning would not apply to them.
You know what an example is? Regardless of whether I agree with him or not, those were examples. They good list a whole bunch of other foods or shampoos or drinks or whatever the hell you can imagine. The poster was trying to make a point. Fixating on the examples and giving personal examples of people you specifically don't do the two things the poster mentioned doesn't make the argument lose its merit.
My personal opinion on the subject is very different than the poster's, which can be summarized to that I don't oppose art because I don't like the artist, I won't stop reading Lovecraft or listening to Vivaldi because they were trash people, because their art is great. So I don't in fact agree with what the poster said, but clinging to personal examples to refute an argument while ignoring the global average which is what the argument was using is disingenuous.
With the same logic, since the people you know don't eat meat, that'd mean there's no problem with the meat eating in the world, which I'm sure you'd rush to point out the absurdity of logic there.
OP did not say they did not want to play the games. They said they could not play their games because that would be giving money to the studios; that which is a form of support. The relevant sentence is here:
I am fairly sure that OP would love to play the games they cite. And that they love the art. But that is not the point. The point is whether or not they are willing to support the bad practices from the studio. Because if they did buy the game, indirectly it would be supporting those bad practices.
Your initial point (the "global average" of it) was that there are more serious things to care in the world - you were assuming that OP had to be doing something else such as buying non-local food which is bad for the planet, and you were more or less saying that it is stupid for them to care about what happens in the game industry when they most probably do not care about the food they eat.
My point was that you were doing moral assumptions about OP - I pointed your specific avocado example, but even more generally than that, you were assuming that OP had to be doing something wrong somewhere in the context of ecology.
Well, now, my last and final point is that OP may be someone who is careful about what they buy generally speaking (not just avocados), whether it be shampoo or whatever. Again, I do know people who are very careful about what they buy. They will try their best to never buy something new for instance ; buying from second-hand places for example. And they will try their best to almost never waste something. If OP were to be someone like that, then your whole point would not apply to them. Hence my initial point.
I did not get your meta-logical reasoning on your last paragraph. But I will leave it at that because I am not sure continuing this discussion is fruitful.
You're right it's not, since neither did I comment on the original poster's message, but the one's you were responding to, nor did I assume anything about the original poster. And I'm certain I was not the person you originally replied to either.
Maybe pay more attention next time? If you're interested in my answer to the OP, I have that below in another comment that answers to the OP, not you answering to someone else that commented on the OP.
Apologies - I am not good with names and the "Show context" feature only shows one message. I did not even realize I was talking to a different person. Thanks for clarifying
I appreciate your thought-out response. I'm going to respond as best I can to your points.
I struggle with moral/ethical conundrums in all areas of my life. The current discussion is games, but I really do consider the harm I might be causing any time I buy things. There are some harms that I cannot avoid, such as the purchase of gasoline (my current income is low and I cannot afford a greenee car). Others, such as food purchases, are limited in what I can do... But I try anyway. I have an app for telling me about ethical sourcing by company/product which I use at the store. Clothing, sadly, tends to be unethical no matter what, unless I make my own clothes - I sadly don't have the time or money to do so.
With video games, which are themselves a luxury, I have so many choices of what to play that I feel I have much more ability to decide what not to play, based on how I feel about where my money is going.
I should also acknowledge that I don't think any of these games/developers will suffer as a result of me not purchasing them. Developers/programmers also do not make income based on sales, and layoffs happen after the release of many major AAA games, simply because they don't need that large team anymore (I don't agree with this practice at all, and I think it's horrible to do to people who already don't make enough for their work, but it's relatively industry standard). The gaming community is also waaaay too large for any kind of boycott to be effective. I'm just trying to be mindful about my purchases based on my own feeling.
I think you raise a fair point about indie games. I think it's a good reminder to me to look into those as well. As long as there's no major publicized controversy surrounding an indie company, however, there's no information I can use to steer me away from it. But, I appreciate your reminder not to blindly purchase indie games just because the company is "indie."
Overall, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I will be considering your points as I move forward.
As far as I know, Larian is not such a company like you mention. Everything they've done or said so far, to my knowledge, both referring to BG3 and their previous games is classes above the average for the industry.
Of course it's your decision to not buy their game based on the fact they had to use WotC's IP, but you're punishing an actually good developer for something they did not have a choice on (WotC's ethics and way of running things).
Truth is like that you're not hurting them, and most importantly not hurting WotC who'd get a small percentage of a small percentage of your sale. Couple of bucks at best is nothing to WotC's bottom line.
But that's your prerogative and that's fine. However, I do suggest you play the game, cracked if you must because so far with about 20h in, it's an amazing game from a great company. Maybe it won't make you buy it, but at least it might make you consider supporting their other, or future, games that are not connected with WotC. Because the last few years we're fast to point fingers to others, but forget to reward the few that do things properly.
I do agree with this.
You know why I hated on hogwarts legacy?
I hated on it because it had denuvo and was performing like ass unless you had high end hardware at the time
It's the fate of any large enough company in a capitalist system. Greed creates/incentivizes this behavior and then rewards it. Microtransactions and dark patterns wouldn't exist if they didn't work. Greedy people know this and the rest of us are plagued by them.
Problem: the set of companies you shouldn't support due to unethical behavior is pretty much all of them. As the saying goes, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. If doing business with someone with blood on their hands puts blood on your hands, then only the hands of hermits and children are clean.
This is one of the reasons why I use free and open source software wherever possible, but very few games are FOSS and most of them were commercial before being FOSSified (e.g. Doom).
When it comes to the corporate world, your purchases are like your vote in politics. WotC has done some stuff that lots of people (myself included) don't like. They've also done some stuff people really do like.
The situation around the open gaming license was the perfect example. People boycotted D&D beyond, and other directly related products, but very few boycotted the D&D movie, because people wanted to discourage Wizards from the specific license changes, but didn't want to discourage making good movies for our niche audience.
Obviously not all companies have separate things like this. Activision/Blizzard are more monolithic, and so selectively boycotting them is harder.
All this said, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so if any boycott is costing you too much, monetarily, mental health-wise, etc., you shouldn't feel bad for breaking it
I once heard "when you vote with your wallet, people with more money get more votes", and that really helped me internalize how unlikely it is to expect occasional boycott to beat executives investing millions in marketing to lure entire audiences of well-off customers might not even be informed of the issues going behind the scenes. You can boycott for your moral satisfaction, but to enact actual change, it isn't enough.
I feel you, it's tough knowing that there's great games out there and feeling like you can't play them. It's even tougher when the people around you are playing them too, especially when they're telling you how great they are.
I think your partner has the right idea with supporting indie developers, generally speaking the money stays closer to the creator, so it feels like you're more directly supporting them. But you've also got to be careful because individuals can be just as vile as organizations, there's been times that I bought a game, thought it was great, and then found out after the fact that the creator is outspokenly transphobic or something like that.
I want to mention Hogwarts Legacy as a specific example. It's a game I don't want to support because JK will profit from it, and she supports the erasure of people like me. I have a friend who played the game, and from his account the game itself is pretty hip. The character creator is supposedly pretty inclusive. He raised the point that JK had very little to do with the development of the game, and the development team seems to really care. Does that mean we shouldn't support them because an evil individual profits from it? It certainly added some nuance to the situation that I hadn't considered.
I think the best way to stay hopeful is to play games that you really enjoy. For me, it helped to educate myself on this list of dark patterns in gaming, and to find games that don't include these features. To me that says that the creators want you to enjoy their experience to the utmost, because generally speaking the more dark patterns are in the game, the more the game is designed to profit off of you. You should be the one to profit from the game IMO.
The development team got paid regardless of how well the game sold, and unless the company operates a system of employee profit-sharing, they're not going to see any of the benefits of the game doing well. So the "buy it to support the devs" argument doesn't really hold any weight, save in the hypothetical scenario that they'll get a payrise for working on the studio's next title.
That's a good point, I never really considered that. The argument does hold some weight for the live-service model, but to my knowledge that's not really how that game operates.
But there's plenty of support besides financial too. I'd agree that as a developer I do care most about being paid for my work, especially if I'm going to work on a AAA game. But for my own projects, I mostly care that people play my games and enjoy them, even if that means piracy or streaming.
I dunno, sometimes "supporting the devs" these days just means not sending them death threats. But I also think that if we look at financial support as the only way to support a game then we risk dehumanizing the people who work on our toys.
Hej, there
I can understand your frustration. Right now it feels that we small people can't do anything to do good in the world. There are greedy capitalist everywhere. It is nearly impossible to understand what damage ones desicion could make. If our desicions even could make a difference.
But the thing is, you can't overlook everything. It's a gouverments job to keep an eye over Corporations.
But that doesn't mean, that you can't do anything. You can search for Informations and make yourself aware of those topics. You can support workers and strikes. You could limit yourself on what stuff you are comsuming.
You don't have to boycott every major company and every Product. You just could make a list about everything you really need and what you are really looking forward to. So you can balance your need for morality and fun.
You will find a way that's suits you. Don't worry
I really appreciate this response. It balances the want to do good and make ethical choices with the reality that I can't do everything perfectly. It's important to do the best we can and also leave room to enjoy ourselves :)
it's a complex issue, and it will probably end up dirty, since it's business in the end.
I could understand why people would avoid buying Hogwarts Legacy, because how much the IP is tied to transphobic JK Rowling. But the devs on the other hand, they mostly don't get the say on which IP to work on. I personally avoid games like that, because the same person has enough followers to keep spouting hate which could and have translated to real world bigotry and violence. And the game serves as marketing for people to follow JK Rowling.
Then there are companies with sexual harassments incidents. In that case, spreading the words and making enough noise so that some legal investigations or actions are taken, should be the way. Then there's crunch and overwork issues, helping them to spread the word about union, not to cross the picket lines, etc.
There are many of those issues, because we didn't address them earlier in the past few decades. But shedding the light on them and you feeling frustrated are good things, it means that we're progressing, we're identifying, feeling guilty, and trying to address them.
I'd say, be more conscious when purchasing games, maybe if you really really want to play Baldur's Gate 3, then only buy it when there's a steep discount? Nowadays I play a lot more indies and retro games, and probably would only buy a full price games once or twice a year. There's large number of other good games out there, don't be pressured to be FOMO, wait until there's steep discount. And after waiting for awhile, sometimes you realize that you could just ignore the problematic game altogether.
Also, just because they are indies, don't mean that they can't be piece of shit. Main dev of Ion Fury is homophobic, Jonathan Blow of the Witness is misogynistic POS, Kovarex from Factorio dismissing statutory rape as SJW term
Thank you for your response. I also think it's good that people are becoming more aware of these issues and doing what they can to address them.
I also think your point about FOMO is a good one; it becomes much less frustrating when I look at my backlog of games I've already purchased and have thousands of hours left to play. There will always be new games, and they won't always be made by people that make me feel uncomfortable.
As others have stated, you make a good point about indie game devs. Jonathan Blow is one that my partner brings up regularly. I didn't know about Ion Fury or Kovarex but that's disappointing. It's hard to keep track of it all, but when I find out about things like this, I'll do my best to consider it when making future purchases.
I think your partner is on the right track-- be part of the solution, make something new.
Larian studios seems great. I would like more companies to invest in / hire studios similar to Larian. Sure, WotC sucks. But I will vote with my dollars for them to work with Larian. Maybe it means in the future more gaming companies might look like Larian. Everybody has to draw their own line, though.
They're all big companies. They're all shitty somewhere. If you want to play something just play it. I find the worst of them are also making games that don't interest me in the slightest, but even Activision put out the Tony Hawks Remaster and EA put out It Takes Two so I was all over them.
If you spend all your time worrying about shitty companies, you'll be living in a cave eating moss. It's OK to lament the state of things and then do them anyway. It's on the workers to unionise and shaft the management back, because without them there's no product and no money.
Nah, games should be fun and stressing over what happens behind the scenes distracts from that. Do I know Acti-Blizz have major issues, yes, does it stop Diablo 4 being fun, nope.
You can choose to not buy if you want, it won't make a lick of difference.
https://gamerant.com/hogwarts-legacy-2023-sales-zelda-diablo-competition/
Yes, it will.
First, you won't spend that money, you can spend that on other things instead.
Second, you can spend the money you have saved this way on products of better companies. For games this may be good indie developers and smaller studios (is that a thing?), but generally for software there is usually a wider range of options, and I mean even actual alternatives.
You could argue that me not paying for youtube premium won't change a thing. That may sound true, but it isn't necessarily: if you instead support your creators trough Liberapay or Patreon, then not only Google will get less, but the crearor and toss other platform will get more money, so they can improve their services and keep the lights up. Or like choosing to pay for Cryptpad instead of Google Drive will again besides having Google and their investors getting less, Cryptpad devs (who are very resource constrained, just as mostly any users-first software project because of not being known) will get more.
Let me put it this way... I haven't bought an EA product since 1998. Can you tell? LOL.
EA's portfolio has been so thoroughly undiversified that they're looking for a buyer, just like Square Enix, Zenimax, and Activision have been. In that time that EA became enormous, smaller publishers like Embracer, Paradox, Anna Purna, and Devolver have grown as they reached that neglected customer base that EA left behind. Larian has grown by making really good games in a style neglected by EA. EA owns BioWare and got further and further away from making the Baldur's Gate 3 that Larian just made. So yes, it makes a difference.
I really admire your response here as you put my thoughts and feeling about this more eloquently than I could. I really want to incentivize the good work people are doing, and while my dollar going somewhere else might not mean much to EA or Blizzard, it means a lot more to smaller groups who are trying to do the right thing with less resources. It also just feels nice to spend money on something good :)
@emeraldheart I'm not frustrated, because it's not a dilemma to me.
Blizzard's glory days are long gone, WOTC does whatever, I had my fun, and J.K. Rowling is a more complex topic. But assuming she's "bad" I'm fine with that too.
The games industry is only bleak if you omit the #indiedev scene. there are *so many* cool, new games.
E.g. In the last 12 months I have had a blast with Against the Storm, Phantom Brigade and Mechabellum.
I think of it like this: my own personal boycotts do nothing individually, but I am doing a very small something by refusing to be a bridge to grossly evil companies into my communities, and raising the ethical concerns with egregiously bad corporate cultures and business models. And for my own personal comfort, I just can't engage with products that fill me with disgust due to the taint of who will ultimately profit from my purchase.
On that, when my personal attachment to a creator, studio, or individual game supercedes my disgust or frustration with a publisher's business models or revenue streams, I try and keep that in the conversation. I play a lot of Warframe, which has some mildly manipulative monetisation like algorithmic discounts and crippleware elements; and PSO2 which is published by a corporation with a large gambling revenue stream, and the game itself has gambling elements in it, albeit surprisingly low on the evil anti-player scale.
And that's the thing, sometimes I love something enough that I can't bear to part with it. I find Yoshi-P's transphobia and support of NFTs to be sufficiently revolting that I can't play FFXIV anymore, nor will I ever buy anything or even positively talk about anything associated with him ever again; but I'm still subscribed to FFXI. I still plan to buy new mainline Dragon Quest games despite the fact that Square-Enix treats its customers with absolute contempt and has committed to a path of ecological violence against the Pacific.
That said, I think it is a good mental exercise to get in the habit of thinking about who you're giving your patronage to. Do they have good working conditions? Where do they make their money? Are the leaders shitheads? These things become part of a disposition, and you become part of a cultural conversation, one that's clearly starting to engage more and more people. Start talking about good developers and especially workers' coops like KO_OP (handily named) and Motion Twin; or studios with excellent working conditions like Supergiant, Hello Games, or Monolith Soft.
That said, this is all still part of the infamously ineffectual practice of lifestylism. At the end of the day I believe it's about cultivating a particular set of values and trying to broach them to as many people as possible, and learning to effectively and respectfully communicate them. If you ever do get in the industry or can support people in the industry, that's when you can actually do something material.
I agree with most of what you said. I think it's important to be conscious of where our money is going and to be comfortable discussing that with others.
About FF14 and Yoshi-P, however, I've actually heard the opposite about his opinion on trans people and NFTs. I heard from my friends (and upon a quick Google search I just did) that he expressed sympathy towards trans community members and that he was trying to keep NFTs out of the game? If you've heard otherwise, can you please share the information? I was going to resubscribe to play with my friends, but if you know something, I'd love for you to share it.
I will also check out those companies you mentioned near the end, such as KO_OP and Supergiant!
re: transphobia:
Yoshi-P is a very talented speaker, I'll give him that. But you have to look at what he's actually saying. There's a very pretty preamble about "I'm sad that society, is this way, so my hands are tied..." which is a technique known as impersonation. Whether or not Yoshi-P himself is a transphobe, I guess I can't say, but the entire speech itself is just straight up transphobia. He then provides a single sad vignette as if to say that can somehow be generalised across all of society, and not just a particular minority view. The ultimate thrust of things is that the small amount of transphobes in the audience are more important than making trans people feel comfortable or welcome.
After I stopped playing XIV, it got much more obvious in context. If I contrast the freedom of presentation in PSO2, which lets you have control over how masculine or feminine your bone structure is, what sex characteristics your character has, and whether you have a masculine or feminine face and to what extent. Beyond that, there's also a diverse wardrobe for both "Type 1" and "Type 2" in the game's parlance (which in itself is super cool) to facilitate how you want to present, even if you don't want to change your body type.
In FFXIV, I was largely stuck using mods to make sure the clothes I wanted were possible. When the game started official porting previously male clothes to female models, they did so with the caveat that your character absolutely must have prominent breasts. Similarly, going in the opposite direction, all the previously-female gear was really revealing and I think meant to be more funny than serious. Bad luck if you wanted to present femme and not just dress up in obvious drag. This might be better now though, I haven't played in a year and a half.
re: NFTs
I can't find where he's spoken against NFTs in general. "NFTs won't be in FFXIV" is not a general statement of opposition to them. The most I've seen is "making a fun game around cryptocurrency would be difficult", but no actual firm statement of opposition. If Square Enix is as democratic as they say they are, and given Yoshida is on the board of directors, I don't think the Square Enix push to NFTs is just unilaterally Matsuda.
I really thought this was going to be about gamergate and I was ready to just burn down the entire Internet
Sorry to concern you! If anything I'm on the complete opposite side of the gaming politics pendulum.
There is no ethical consumption under this system, and there's absolutely no hope for it.
The only thing we can do is set our own little moral lines so our hands feel a little cleaner, but it's absolutely impossible to exist in this society while also caring about everything awful going on. There's just too much of it. If I gave one dime to every cause that should be important to me (based on how I see myself), I would drain my bank account into the deep negatives. You absolutely must prioritize your time, money, and attention to a few specific things that you absolutely can't sleep at night knowing you've supported.
For example, global warming is totally fucked. There's literally no way to not fuck up and strip away most of the planet's biosphere, even if everyone woke up tomorrow and said "Shit, we have to go 0 carbon right now!" and accomplished it before lunchtime. It's too late. We're just fucked. The best case is we're fucked well after I die, but even that's not looking particularly likely. So there's no point in me moderating my purchases around so-called "environmentally friendly" companies, because there's no such thing and, if there were one, it wouldn't matter.
But LGBTQ people (like me) exist right now, and will continue to exist right up until we trigger the greenhouse gas cascade that turns Earth into Venus, and since I know we only have so much time left here, it's very important to me to not support people who want to make sure LGBTQ people suffer as much as possible in the interim. Fortunately, the organizations that hate gay people are about as subtle as people who do CrossFit, so it's easy to see them and not give them any money. Am I still giving money to crypto-facists who keep their mouths shut about it in public? Probably, but at least I'm kind of rewarding the behavior of "shutting the fuck up".
Meanwhile, I financially oppose WotC's bullfuckery only insofar as it affects me, personally. If One D&D weren't a giant tire fire that grows with every UA playtest release, I'd probably suck it up and buy it. But since they're also trying to shoehorn their virtual tabletop with AI DMs as the exclusive method by which people play their game, like some kind of half-assed MMO, I won't. Not because I can be assed to care about AI or anti-consumer practices, but because it's obnoxious to me and not fun to me and costs me money for shit I won't enjoy as much. I simply don't have the energy to care about WotC's happy relationship with the Pinkertons, if for no other reason than literally every major company in the world also pays the Pinkertons to do fucky shit all over the globe, and if I care about one company doing it, I have to care about all the other companies openly doing the same thing, and then I'd have to, like, start making my own soap and stuff. Which I just don't have the energy to do.
What it ultimately comes down to is this: honor is an expensive luxury that the vast majority of us simply cannot afford. Buy what you need to survive, spend the extra on whatever bread and circuses allow you to cope with the impending doom of society, and prioritize your moral focus on only a few things that loom the biggest in your mind, the ones that produce the largest amount of shame and guilt for supporting.
Everything is going to produce some amount of guilt, because it's all fucked. You just have to learn to set a guilt-filter in your brain, so guilt below a certain threshold doesn't register anymore. There's literally nothing to be done about it: Even death can't absolve us of supporting oppression and environmental destruction. After you die, someone's going to give shady religious conmen money from your deceased wallet to dig up a big rock, scribble some words on it, put you in an unnecessary coffin, bury you with heavy diesel equipment, tell lies about a bigot-god over your corpse, and then hire someone for minimum wage (at best; more likely, they'll exploit an ethnic minority from another country to do it for pennies) to mow the grass on top of you for the rest of society's existence. Or the other option, which involves exactly as many shady religious conmen, but switches out the long-term grass-mowing for a short, massive burst of fuel and carbon to turn you into ashes, the button for which is probably also being pressed by an oppressed wage slave making a few nickles an hour.
BUT, there's always the possibility that I'm wrong, and that things aren't eternally and irrevokably fucked forever. As a hedge against that, I do two things: I stay employed and budget my money (so I won't be the guy standing naked in a cornfield waiting for whatever apocalypse or second-coming that doesn't happen, thus making myself well and truly fucked), and I vote in every single election I ever hear about, from the Presidential election to the August special election to replace the town dogcatcher.
My advice is work out where you draw the line, and don't cross it.
I'm gonna be honest- if you're buying games through Steam, you're already giving money to a deeply unethical firm: Valve. Valve takes a 30% cut of all transactions on Steam. Valve is also the studio that introduced lootboxes and similarly predatory microtransactions to the western market, and continues to profit from them to this day.
Where I draw the line is when a studio drops below the already low bar set by the industry. When a studio sexually harasses an employee to the point of suicide. When most of the game's development cycle is pure crunch. When a studio puts predatory microtransactions into a singleplayer game.
I also draw the line when a game (or any other work of media, for that matter) is directly giving money to bigoted scumbags. If a studio employs bigoted scumbags, that person is getting paid whether or not I buy the game. But if a studio is making a game based on the IP of a bigoted scumbag, they're getting a cut of each sale. When a copy of that game is brought, they're getting a bit of money they wouldn't have got if the game wasn't brought.
All companies do bad things. The only question is whether or not you know about them. I personally am of the opinion that not buying particular products is only useful as part of a coordinated boycott. Otherwise, it's just empty virtue signalling.
Perhaps we should have some sort of a gamers consumer organization that coordinates boycotts over specific issues. I would be willing to participate. And it's not like you can't allow the company's reputation figure in to your decision to buy. But no form of absolute morality, divorced from reality, is either helpful, or even particularly healthy.