All of the positive reviews and coverage this game received indicate that the game will likely be considered a commercial and critical success in spite of the demands for a boycott. The proposed boycott will likely be considered a failure, but it brought up an interesting discussion about how video games should be covered. Most video game websites are financially motivated to cover every game as it is released. These websites milk every drop of content out of newly-released titles to optimize viewership and revenue via walkthroughs, wikis, guides, reviews, and videos. Many of these websites are beholden to major corporations that prioritize monetary decisions, not ethical ones.

Two of the biggest of these websites, namely Game Informer and IGN, justified their choice to review this game with the claim that they are judging this product on its quality as a video game. They treat supporting J.K. Rowling as an “external factor” that is not taken into consideration in the review. As a consequence of separating the game and the controversy, these sites put the responsibility solely on the consumer to decide whether their desire to play the game outweighs how much they want to support the trans community. It is wrong for journalists and other creators to review the game without including this context because video game players have to forfeit some of their money to J.K. Rowling to play it.

Games media should have been upfront about the issue and encouraged informed decision-making in their reviews. Unfortunately, the reality of how these creators handled this situation was far from that ideal scenario. Many review sites did not mention the boycott or make any statement about J.K. Rowling’s beliefs at all. On the other hand, several websites abstained from reviewing or otherwise covering Hogwarts Legacy. Gamespot has several guides and videos related to the game but has not reviewed them. Gamespot also posted a statement about J.K. Rowling and links to several charities that support trans people. Giant Bomb, Gamespot’s sister website, has been vocal about its decision to not cover this game and has spread support for the boycott. TheGamer is another website that has refused to review Hogwarts Legacy and has been critical about how games media has handled the situation.

While the Hogwarts Legacy story continues to unfold, the other game, Atomic Heart, has yet to release, and it is unclear what kind of reception it will receive. The title is steeped in mystery, and its surrounding controversy evokes similar thoughts about ethical video game purchasing decisions. Atomic Heart is the first game from developer Mundfish. Mundfish is a Russian video game studio that was founded in 2017. Mundfish has tried to disguise and downplay its Russian origins, and its website states the company is headquartered in Cyprus. Its website also advertises it has an international team with workers from ten countries. Interestingly, the website lists only nine of the countries its employees are from. The countries listed include Poland, Ukraine, Austria, Georgia, Israel, Armenia, United Arab Emirates, Serbia, and Cyprus. Notably, Russia is missing from this list.

According to AIN.capital, a central and eastern European media website, Mundfish has a Russian address and several ties with Russian investors. There was also a suspicious privacy policy found on the Russian language version of Mundfish’s website that claimed that they would collect user data and potentially transfer it to Russian state authorities. GamesRadar reached out to Mundfish, who replied that its privacy policy was outdated. The statement Mundfish gave was: “Our game and website DO NOT collect any information or data. The website’s privacy statement is outdated and wrong and should have been removed years ago.”

Another red flag is Mundfish’s refusal to “discuss politics” or otherwise condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is particularly interesting due to the game’s politically-charged backdrop. The game is set in an alternative history where the Soviet Union defeated Germany during WWII and became the dominant world power. Due to the combination of the game’s glamorization of the Soviet Union and the studio’s refusal to condemn Russia’s recent military actions, some consumers and publications are worried that this game may be an elaborate piece of pro-Russian propaganda.

It is currently unclear if Mundfish has any connections to the Russian government. If so, this game’s revenue may be put toward the Russian war effort. It is important to note that it is not inherently bad that this game is being developed by a Russian studio. However, it is strange that the studio is attempting to obscure its Russian ties. Mundfish’s connections with Russian investors and history of sharing user data with the Russian government do not help to ease consumer concerns. Even if there is no direct connection between the studio and the Russian government, the developers’ questionable actions should be enough to make most consumers wary of Atomic Heart. 

By identifying the specific concerns consumers have around each of these titles, the similarities between the two become more apparent. Both titles have people behind the project that consumers may not want to support. Firstly, Hogwarts Legacy with J.K. Rowling because of how she uses her platform to spread anti-trans rhetoric and makes the lives of trans people worse. Secondly, Atomic Heart with the developer Mundfish’s mixture of ties to Russia and an unwillingness to denounce support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Unfortunately, Hogwarts Legacy and Atomic Heart are far from the only games with these kinds of issues. Specifically, the type of issues that make consumers question their purchasing decision regardless of its actual quality as a game. When consumers decide if they want to buy a game with these issues, the decision goes beyond the quality of the product itself; it becomes an introspective evaluation of whether they can ethically justify that purchase. These issues expand beyond just video games, but that is outside the scope of this article.

It is beneficial for consumers to think critically about what they decide to buy. However, it can be overwhelming for consumers to weigh the personal enjoyment they may receive from a game against indirectly harming others each time they want to make a purchase. It is impractical to demand that consumers critically think about the impact of each game they buy, as it would likely cause consumers to burn out on that way of thinking and develop an apathetic mindset. Ultimately, each prospective video game buyer should determine the most important issues to them and use those to guide their purchasing decisions.

Video game websites should encourage this decision-making by discussing and reviewing games with those ethical considerations at the forefront. In the case of Hogwarts Legacy, games media generally failed the LGBTQIA+ community by not making it clear why people are demanding a boycott of the game, treating the controversy as an “external factor” for consumer consideration, and in some cases, neglecting to mention the controversy at all while discussing the game. It is unknown what new information will come out about Atomic Heart in the days surrounding its release. Hopefully, games media will handle whatever Atomic Heart may bring better than they did Hogwarts Legacy.

For better or worse, this February will be one to remember.