I know this is a bit of a meme, but there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism. It’s entirely a question of where you choose to draw the line.

This applies to a lot of causes/principles I care about, but to illustrate with my stance on LGBT issues:

• If a company openly donates directly to anti-LGBT causes? I’d boycott them, no further questions needed.

• If a high ranking member of a company donates to anti-LGBT causes using their own (likely unethically obtained) funds? I’d boycott for sure unless their product/service is an absolute necessity.

• If a company is headquartered in a state/country that is anti-LGBT? I would definitely boycott as long as there is a suitable alternative.

• If a company pays/employs people who are anti-LGBT? Gosh, well, that’s probably most companies. Is it possible to account for how every individual employee/beneficiary chooses to spend the money they make for their work? I have no capacity to make choices at this point.

Those are my lines.

When I shop at the supermarket, I have to accept that there are likely people working there somewhere with horrible beliefs whose income is financially supported by my patronage. When I buy clothing, I have to accept that there are probably products I’ve purchased that are made through exploitative labor practices. When it is within my means to spend capital more ethically, I will. But it is absolutely not possible for me to ensure that every dollar I spend goes to a worthwhile cause or to someone who deserves it.

The Good Place really illustrated this point well in the later episodes. In the modern world where everything is so much more interconnected than ever before, we need to redefine traditional ethics to better consider what is practical for normal people. And the worse your circumstances are, the harder it is to have that luxury of choice.

If you were actually rigorous with this sort of attitude you wouldn’t be able to buy anything, not just your favorite video games. Just relax and enjoy yourself, you only get a tiny bit of time here.

Terrible people have produced magnificent “content” since Oog and Tharg first painted on cave walls. I love the work of Wagner, even though I’m not a Nazi. Fan of Lovecraft even though his standards are equally shitty. I adore American Psycho even though B E Ellis comes across as an utter tool. Picasso was a womanizing prick, boardering on paedophile. Great painter though.

Feel free to vote with your wallet, but if you become too sensitive to the moral and ethical views of people, or “some” of the people working for companies, you’ll miss out on some masterpieces.

Having said that, I won’t buy any Kelloggs products because fuck Kelloggs. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe a little, but we all need our lines in the sand.

Jesus… if you beat yourself up this much over games, how do you deal with stuff that really matters. Do you moralize over the gas you buy? Do you consider the cable company who gives you the internet connection, when you have only one option? Do you freak out over every single piece of food you purchase, and the supermarket you buy it from, and the television you watch?

Or do you only wax endlessly on video games? Play what you want to, or don’t, but you’re putting way too much thought into this, and if that’s what you want to do, you’ve made your choice, but then perhaps you need to stop buying almost all video games, and read up on crunch, because almost every video game is made at the expense of their employees, and their mental health.

You do you.

As for me, I’ll continue to support companies who I think make a good product, and not avoid stuff like Hogwarts Legacy, or Balder’s Gate, because I realize the majority of the money I spend to pay for those games go to the developers who worked extremely hard to give fans something special. Because you won’t hurt the big companies, but you definitely will destroy the developer and the company that made the game with that attitude.

Piracy.

deleted by creator

I just buy games that I think I’ll enjoy.

Perhaps I’m old-fashioned.

What has WotC done to make you want to boycott them?

Not to be blunt, but there are no ‘ethical’ companies. But at each of those companies, there are good people and good devs who don’t agree with the unethical decisions their management has made.

If there is a game you strongly feel you would enjoy, you can get it knowing you’ll be supporting at least some good people.

All that being said I do still draw a line and there are some microtransaction-hells I refuse to touch.

You can only take moralistic consumerism so far; you cannot go 100% moral against today’s companies without living in the woods.

For instance, if my annoyance with Company X is that they generally charge too much, and offer poor licensing deals to business partners, or that they try to nickel and dime people on some video games, I probably won’t take a hard line stance on them. If they have a direct and fully voluntary interaction with a country committing genocide and making internment camps, I’m a bit more likely to do my best to live without them.

There can also sometimes be more distant connections or more blameless ones, like if a company uses materials from one such country in their products, but there is genuinely no practical alternative across the whole world when using such parts/ingredients.

For me, the ethical dilemmas affect my enjoyment of games by how involved a scandal/cause of scandal is ingrained into the game. For example, I think Rowling’s views are horrendous and I would absolutely stay away from projects that she has influence in; however, I still picked up Hogwarts Legacy because the studio spoke out against her views, and even included representation in their game for those who she spewed hatred against. The story was almost entirely original, so Rowling’s influence was pretty much restrained to her having created the general world, and some minor character lore. The developers and designers did not cause the hate, so while it sucks some portion of my purchase went to Rowling (even if it was just in a license they paid, the success of the game would likely inspire them to make another, resulting in her getting more cash). It’s difficult to want to punish the teams that built the game when someone who was largely hands-off is the reason it felt a little gross to play.

On the other hand, I’ve avoided High on Life because you need to hear Roiland talk through the majority of the game (until the patch replaces his voice). Squanch Games was owned by him, which means his views are likely reflected in larger portions of the game. I would be constantly reminded of Roiland, and his larger role likely means he profits quite a bit from the game doing well. While it’s certain that Squanch Games has great people working for them that I wouldn’t want to ‘punish’ by their game doing poorly either, it’s just tough for me to separate them. (Also yes I’ve heard Roiland’s charges were dropped, but the judgement was worded in a way that made it clear it was due to lack of damning evidence and not that he was necessarily absolved of accusations).

I agree that it’s important to have discussions about topics and culture that surround projects like this so consumers can be aware of what their cash is supporting. Even though I did feel somewhat guilty buying Hogwarts, I also took the time to give $20 to The Trevor Project in an attempt to offset what Rowling would make from my purchase. Does that make up for it? Who knows.

Indie games are the way to go. Way less predatory and often better anyways.

Ahoy matey. Quite a conundrum ya have there. Th’ winds be fair in times like this… may yer briny deep be bountiful!

deleted by creator