One of these again. I struggle to form a coherent opinion on this one. Yes the player broke tournament rules and yes you can argue that he should be banned on that basis alone. But oh my god. Even if they banned him just on the basis of enforcing that rule rather than pampering to the Chinese market (and that's a huge if) the visuals of this are so predictably bad.
What meeting can they possibly have had where the options were "Just reprimand him in private" or "Ban him, get into the news cycle and face weeks of public backlash" and they landed on the latter?
It's hard to imagine the decision wasn't almost completely fuelled by Tencent's part ownership of Blizzard and Blizzard's stated goal to expand their marketshare in China. If so, it devolved from a company increasingly known for just poor decisions and communication (mobile Diablo announcement anyone?) to a company that publicly and blatantly prioritises shareholder interests over ethics.
And let's be frank; there's not that much anyone can do about it. People can claim they're uninstalling Blizzard games. And I'm sure some do. But the next time they release an objectively good game everyone's back in.
>Yes the player broke tournament rules and yes you can argue that he should be banned on that basis alone.
The rule in question is
>Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image
Which is so open ended that it's impossible to not break it if you have an opinion and are speaking to a global audience. You could go up on stage and say "It's bad to murder people for being gay" and a portion or group of the public in some other countries would get offended about it.
But Blizzard wouldn't be banning people and taking their prize money for that. 100% this is about Tencent and Blizzard's access to the Chinese market.
Interesting followup: I just tried to permanently delete my Blizzard account and the request is being denied regardless of my method of verification. The SMS passcode verification claimed on first attempt that it was denied "Due to too many attempts". Makes you wonder if they're intentionally breaking the delete account flow in hopes of weathering the storm.
I don't know if Blizz would consider me a whale but I did spend a pretty penny on their games and just deactivated my WoW subscription and uninstalled all their games from both my PC and phone.
I'm not only doing that. I speak up in forums where Hearthstone is discussed, talk to friends and family members and advocate against money or time towards Blizzards bottom line. F2P even gains with an audience so it's not a solution to just not spend money, you must divest from their platform entirely. I didn't even keep SC2 around, if I were to contribute any views on Twitch or Youtube it's engagement that benefits Blizzard.
I hate them with the fury of a thousand suns for having destroyed the 3 games I loved most of all the games I have played.
And I'm sure some do. But the next time they release an objectively good game everyone's back in.
Ya know, for a company like EA, I am exactly like that. "G-ddamn it, EA! The next time you release a title I'm on the fence about, I'm not going to buy it! {BTW, what's release date for Battlefield X again?}) That's because they have what are, IMO, shitty business practices. But I'm not a very principled man, so I conveniently forget that $GAME_I_REALLY_LIKE is published by EA.
But there is not game on this planet I need play badly enough that I will support "let's all play nice with the big, bad authoritarian government and not make them feel uncomfortable with our rude words". Nope, you go right on the list with Exxon ("I'll walk before I buy fuel from Exxon." And I have.), unlikely to ever be removed again. (Note: I've not read up on the whole stink yet, so I'm not saying Blizzard's on that list now.)
Even more so because it isn't really about the authoritarian government. In some cases, they say jump and you ask how high on the way up. Because they have tanks and shit. But Chinese tanks won't roll to the Blizzard offices. No, they'll roll to the gates of China's economy and keep Blizzard out. Which is even worse, because now the story is, "hush now, or someone might not get their bonus."
There's people who will hardcore boycott them though. I for sure wont be playing Diablo 3 finally (I know, I'm super late). I'll take my money elsewhere to someone who shows they cares about the basic freedoms.
After reading the thread, your comment doesn't follow the content at all. You're talking about the Hearthstone incident while the Twitter thread is discussion is about investment in US companies by China.
> I have watched China slowly take over as the dominant investing force in gaming and movies over the years. It’s a shame US companies never believed as strongly as China and Asia in investing in games, but this allowed China to have unprecedented influence over our media.
> Chinese game companies have grown huge not just because of market size, but because the government subsidizes them. They get free land, free offices, and huge infusions of cash. This cash was and is used to do expand and buy up stakes in US gaming companies.
> I’ve seen firsthand the corruption of Chinese gaming companies, and I was removed from a company I founded (after Blizzard) for refusing to take a 2 million dollar kickback bribe to take an investment from China. This is the first time I’ve ever spoken pubically about it.
> Chinese companies tried to ruin my career with planted press stories. Money is often paid for favorable press in China and some of that money flows here to the US as well. Unfortunately, money talks. China has succeeded in infiltrating all levels of tech, gaming and more.
Perhaps the decision wasn't taken in a meeting, it might have been a single exec high enough in the food chain to apply such a decision, with perhaps either a panicked or knee-jerk action.
I think you're over selling gamers here, they're generally quite pathetic when it comes to organised protests and self control.
They all cried for a week when Blizzard screwed up Diablo, then a few months later those exact same people bought wow classic and another HS expansion.
> ...to a company that publicly and blatantly prioritises shareholder interests over ethics.
Pretty much every company now depending how for down the ethics rabbit hole one traverses. Is returning as much money to investors as possible over giving employees raises ethical?
It is interesting to look back at the last ~50 years from a strategic standpoint. The West gambled that economic prosperity would usher in an age of Chinese liberty, if not actual democracy, and that attempts to resist that would lead to economic collapse.
With benefit of hindsight maybe that strategy was too passive. China has embraced the technical aspects of Western society but it looks dangerously like it will carry them with an authoritarian philosophy. It is a pity; particularly since the English Common Law system combined with separation of power is the greatest accomplishment of the Anglosphere and China would have really ushered in an age of enlightenment had they taken that on.
> The West gambled that economic prosperity would usher in an age of Chinese liberty, if not actual democracy, and that attempts to resist that would lead to economic collapse.
I'm sure the corporations that make those trade agreements saw it as nothing more than cheap labor and large market. How this would help liberty is just something they tacked on to sell it to the public.
> China has embraced the technical aspects of Western society but it looks dangerously like it will carry them with an authoritarian philosophy.
How about tweak the thinking a bit: What's in there for China to totally embraced democracy? Will it become an advantage for the country (Or the leading elites at least), guaranteed? What if the change has failed and lead to something worse?
There are risk factors, and people don't like to take risks. Which is why societal changes are more likely to occur during crisis and disasters, because people simply have nothing to lose anymore.
For CCP, the "Take half the cake" approach is less risky for them, so they did that, and now everybody see what's happened after.
I am less pessimistic than you, I just think it will take more time. With the economic prosperity brought by capitalism, a large middle class is appearing in China. And I think ultimately this middle class is what will push for more democracy.
But it takes time for that middle class to form, to reach critical size, and for it to propagate through the senior ranks of the regime. It might happen in 15-20 years.
> English Common Law system combined with separation of power is the greatest accomplishment of the Anglosphere
An extremely weird statement considering the trias politica hails from France and a vast bulk of legal scholars considers civil law superior to common law.
> The West gambled that economic prosperity would usher in an age of Chinese liberty, if not actual democracy
Early on, not without reason. The outcome of the Cold War seems to be to the democratic-capitalist West's favor. It seems to me that as we move closer to contemporary times, this ideological component starts to take a backseat as businesses grew increasingly reliant on China's affordable export economy.
>I was removed from a company I founded (after Blizzard) for refusing to take a 2 million dollar kickback bribe to take an investment from China
Resisting that takes strength. $2m to take more money and keep quiet? I'd probably quit in shame or be fired eventually, but that's life-changing money.
I do wonder if we could take some amount of money from China and simply not give them what they ask for though when they start making demands, or giving them the run-around.
Well, from people who worked with him they said he was frequently absent and a bad leader. He is also blamed for much of their financial troubles for wanting to frequently change direction.
Additionally, the company took Chinese money 3 years prior to him being fired. Red 5 Studios was majority owned by The9 (a Chinese company) early 2010. Prior to being bought out they closed one office and fired about 30 people. So, I kinda doubt he was removed solely "for refusing to take an investment from china". Especially, when they were already owned by a Chinese company.
This is also next level Streisand effect. I would have never heard of any of all this, if Blizzard had just ignorred the player. Now its on HN a bunch of times, on my twitter timeline etc.
I'm not sure if it was as prevalent in other games (WoW et al), but the cutthroat, zero-sum nature of Eve Online produced a ridiculous volume of user-made, pro-group propaganda videos.
Goonswarm was especially famous for it.
All versions of "People sitting on the sidelines outnumber people with an opinion, so it's more productive to sway them to your cause than your enemy."
> It’s one thing to keep politics out of games, which I am still a proponent of doing. It’s another to unfairly and harshly punish voices that speak out against corruption, against abuses of human rights, and freedom.
What does he mean by this tweet? It seems somewhat contradictory. I assume he means that he's against Blitzchung bringing up politics, but he's more against Blizzard's punishment? Seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too. Not sure how you can prevent politics in gaming without creating and enforcing rules to prevent politics in gaming, which is what Blizzard has done here.
Kern is consistently against art daring to have a political message. Or he doesn't think games are art. It's never been clear. But his stance effectively reduces to that games should never present a moral (what he calls "political") challenge, no matter how anodyne, to a player, and he's consistently legitimated the idea that these moral challenges include "a game, somewhere, is not explicitly made for a majority-straight, majority-white, majority-male audience."
That Kern is on the side of decency on this particular issue is to his credit; he spends most of his time on Twitter contributing to the open-sewer effect. In the calculus he has exhibited since contributing to the original flare-up of "ethics in game journalism" he's made it pretty clear that Call of Duty "oo-rah" and carting out the drone strikes is apolitical but a game focusing on a homosexual relationship is political (because such a game "shoves it in the face" of that majority audience by dint of its existence), so make of it what you will.
There's politics, and there's politics. There's a difference between discussing whatever the US President blurted out on Twitter today, discussing whatever gaffe some local politician made, discussing which party is better and why, whether a group is pushing it too far, and then "abuses of human rights and freedom". The difference has a bit of "you'll know it when you see it" flavor to it. I think that in this light, he sees the issue of Hong Kong not as "politics", but as the real deal, an issue of more fundamental values and freedoms.
I've recently noticed that some people don't see the difference between "types" of politics. I don't understand why. To me, the difference has always been obvious. Some politics are about really important issues. Most of it is bullshit, just something that makes people with nothing better to do to jump at each other's throats. People have been creating "safe spaces" shielded from the latter for ages. The concept of not talking about the bullshit politics and religion at the dinner table is quite old.
It means that is in favor of keeping a game's content apolitical, while he supports free speech and calling out corruption in the gaming scene. The former is a long standing debate point in the gaming community sparked by developers of many high profile games with clear political messages saying that their games are not political. The other is the current situation with Blizzard and NBA.
>Seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too
Your premise only makes any sense in an utterly black and white world.
There are many different levels of enforcement. Blizzard could’ve sent Blitzchung a note pointing out their significant Chinese audience and asked him to refrain from such comments in the future during Blizzard events.
I read this bit as an emphasis on the unfair punishment. It's one thing for Blizzard to disqualify and ban Blitzchung. It's another thing to withhold his winnings and fire the two event commentators who let Blitzchung make his statement.
Is it safe to assume those same bribes to game studios and gaming journalists have likely also been applied to Software start ups and tech journalists?
blizzard hasn't made a good game for about 15 years now. When I was kid Blizzard produced games like warcraft 2 and Diablo. That all ended when they discovered the cash cow of mmorpg. The last unequivocally old blizzard quality game was frozen throne.
Kern is an unhinged, extreme right whackjob so I would take anything he claims with a grain of salt regardless of your feelings on Hong Kong or Activision Blizzard.
I am certain nobody will agree with my opinion, but I will share it anyway.
This sounds to me like a design problem. If you don't want to risk someone expressing an opinion, then give them a drop down of things they can choose from to say. "zug zug" "LokTar O'Gar!"
If you want a social platform where people can express opinions, then keep that thing distanced far away from anything where money, competition, politics, etc... are involved. People will do what people can do. In this circumstance, humans were set up for failure and they will fail again. Keep the social platform identifiable names away from names used in a competition.
For some reason, gamers appear to care about Hong Kong but didn't bat an eye when other gaming companies shut their servers down in Syria/Iran in order to comply with the U.S..
If a large portion of Blizzard's players hadn't been Chinese they wouldn't have reacted that way. So to me, Blizzard is the victim here, they were put in a lose-lose situation.
Regardless, I don't see how a company refusing to have its events politicized is considered so bad.
If people are so adamant about sticking it to China, they should boycott their actual products instead.
[+] [-] remon|6 years ago|reply
What meeting can they possibly have had where the options were "Just reprimand him in private" or "Ban him, get into the news cycle and face weeks of public backlash" and they landed on the latter?
It's hard to imagine the decision wasn't almost completely fuelled by Tencent's part ownership of Blizzard and Blizzard's stated goal to expand their marketshare in China. If so, it devolved from a company increasingly known for just poor decisions and communication (mobile Diablo announcement anyone?) to a company that publicly and blatantly prioritises shareholder interests over ethics.
And let's be frank; there's not that much anyone can do about it. People can claim they're uninstalling Blizzard games. And I'm sure some do. But the next time they release an objectively good game everyone's back in.
[+] [-] wlesieutre|6 years ago|reply
The rule in question is
>Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image
Which is so open ended that it's impossible to not break it if you have an opinion and are speaking to a global audience. You could go up on stage and say "It's bad to murder people for being gay" and a portion or group of the public in some other countries would get offended about it.
But Blizzard wouldn't be banning people and taking their prize money for that. 100% this is about Tencent and Blizzard's access to the Chinese market.
[+] [-] remon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Beltiras|6 years ago|reply
I'm not only doing that. I speak up in forums where Hearthstone is discussed, talk to friends and family members and advocate against money or time towards Blizzards bottom line. F2P even gains with an audience so it's not a solution to just not spend money, you must divest from their platform entirely. I didn't even keep SC2 around, if I were to contribute any views on Twitch or Youtube it's engagement that benefits Blizzard.
I hate them with the fury of a thousand suns for having destroyed the 3 games I loved most of all the games I have played.
[+] [-] mikestew|6 years ago|reply
Ya know, for a company like EA, I am exactly like that. "G-ddamn it, EA! The next time you release a title I'm on the fence about, I'm not going to buy it! {BTW, what's release date for Battlefield X again?}) That's because they have what are, IMO, shitty business practices. But I'm not a very principled man, so I conveniently forget that $GAME_I_REALLY_LIKE is published by EA.
But there is not game on this planet I need play badly enough that I will support "let's all play nice with the big, bad authoritarian government and not make them feel uncomfortable with our rude words". Nope, you go right on the list with Exxon ("I'll walk before I buy fuel from Exxon." And I have.), unlikely to ever be removed again. (Note: I've not read up on the whole stink yet, so I'm not saying Blizzard's on that list now.)
Even more so because it isn't really about the authoritarian government. In some cases, they say jump and you ask how high on the way up. Because they have tanks and shit. But Chinese tanks won't roll to the Blizzard offices. No, they'll roll to the gates of China's economy and keep Blizzard out. Which is even worse, because now the story is, "hush now, or someone might not get their bonus."
[+] [-] giancarlostoro|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brightball|6 years ago|reply
> I have watched China slowly take over as the dominant investing force in gaming and movies over the years. It’s a shame US companies never believed as strongly as China and Asia in investing in games, but this allowed China to have unprecedented influence over our media.
> Chinese game companies have grown huge not just because of market size, but because the government subsidizes them. They get free land, free offices, and huge infusions of cash. This cash was and is used to do expand and buy up stakes in US gaming companies.
> I’ve seen firsthand the corruption of Chinese gaming companies, and I was removed from a company I founded (after Blizzard) for refusing to take a 2 million dollar kickback bribe to take an investment from China. This is the first time I’ve ever spoken pubically about it.
> Chinese companies tried to ruin my career with planted press stories. Money is often paid for favorable press in China and some of that money flows here to the US as well. Unfortunately, money talks. China has succeeded in infiltrating all levels of tech, gaming and more.
[+] [-] CreepGin|6 years ago|reply
Sell their stock. Public opinion do hurt stock prices (the only thing you can count on to make a public company care).
[+] [-] baud147258|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swarnie_|6 years ago|reply
I think you're over selling gamers here, they're generally quite pathetic when it comes to organised protests and self control.
They all cried for a week when Blizzard screwed up Diablo, then a few months later those exact same people bought wow classic and another HS expansion.
Nothing remotely serious will come of this.
[+] [-] chooseaname|6 years ago|reply
Pretty much every company now depending how for down the ethics rabbit hole one traverses. Is returning as much money to investors as possible over giving employees raises ethical?
[+] [-] spoovy|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bigYahnz|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] roenxi|6 years ago|reply
With benefit of hindsight maybe that strategy was too passive. China has embraced the technical aspects of Western society but it looks dangerously like it will carry them with an authoritarian philosophy. It is a pity; particularly since the English Common Law system combined with separation of power is the greatest accomplishment of the Anglosphere and China would have really ushered in an age of enlightenment had they taken that on.
[+] [-] deogeo|6 years ago|reply
I'm sure the corporations that make those trade agreements saw it as nothing more than cheap labor and large market. How this would help liberty is just something they tacked on to sell it to the public.
[+] [-] cafard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rqs|6 years ago|reply
How about tweak the thinking a bit: What's in there for China to totally embraced democracy? Will it become an advantage for the country (Or the leading elites at least), guaranteed? What if the change has failed and lead to something worse?
There are risk factors, and people don't like to take risks. Which is why societal changes are more likely to occur during crisis and disasters, because people simply have nothing to lose anymore.
For CCP, the "Take half the cake" approach is less risky for them, so they did that, and now everybody see what's happened after.
[+] [-] cm2187|6 years ago|reply
But it takes time for that middle class to form, to reach critical size, and for it to propagate through the senior ranks of the regime. It might happen in 15-20 years.
[+] [-] jorvi|6 years ago|reply
An extremely weird statement considering the trias politica hails from France and a vast bulk of legal scholars considers civil law superior to common law.
[+] [-] jhanschoo|6 years ago|reply
Early on, not without reason. The outcome of the Cold War seems to be to the democratic-capitalist West's favor. It seems to me that as we move closer to contemporary times, this ideological component starts to take a backseat as businesses grew increasingly reliant on China's affordable export economy.
[+] [-] 0xDEFC0DE|6 years ago|reply
Resisting that takes strength. $2m to take more money and keep quiet? I'd probably quit in shame or be fired eventually, but that's life-changing money.
I do wonder if we could take some amount of money from China and simply not give them what they ask for though when they start making demands, or giving them the run-around.
[+] [-] faet|6 years ago|reply
https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130737-Updated-Red...
Additionally, the company took Chinese money 3 years prior to him being fired. Red 5 Studios was majority owned by The9 (a Chinese company) early 2010. Prior to being bought out they closed one office and fired about 30 people. So, I kinda doubt he was removed solely "for refusing to take an investment from china". Especially, when they were already owned by a Chinese company.
[+] [-] baud147258|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martin_bech|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bananatron|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baud147258|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] danso|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mimikatz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ethbro|6 years ago|reply
Goonswarm was especially famous for it.
All versions of "People sitting on the sidelines outnumber people with an opinion, so it's more productive to sway them to your cause than your enemy."
[+] [-] andromeduck|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Miner49er|6 years ago|reply
What does he mean by this tweet? It seems somewhat contradictory. I assume he means that he's against Blitzchung bringing up politics, but he's more against Blizzard's punishment? Seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too. Not sure how you can prevent politics in gaming without creating and enforcing rules to prevent politics in gaming, which is what Blizzard has done here.
[+] [-] eropple|6 years ago|reply
That Kern is on the side of decency on this particular issue is to his credit; he spends most of his time on Twitter contributing to the open-sewer effect. In the calculus he has exhibited since contributing to the original flare-up of "ethics in game journalism" he's made it pretty clear that Call of Duty "oo-rah" and carting out the drone strikes is apolitical but a game focusing on a homosexual relationship is political (because such a game "shoves it in the face" of that majority audience by dint of its existence), so make of it what you will.
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|6 years ago|reply
I've recently noticed that some people don't see the difference between "types" of politics. I don't understand why. To me, the difference has always been obvious. Some politics are about really important issues. Most of it is bullshit, just something that makes people with nothing better to do to jump at each other's throats. People have been creating "safe spaces" shielded from the latter for ages. The concept of not talking about the bullshit politics and religion at the dinner table is quite old.
[+] [-] fesoliveira|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanlol|6 years ago|reply
Your premise only makes any sense in an utterly black and white world.
There are many different levels of enforcement. Blizzard could’ve sent Blitzchung a note pointing out their significant Chinese audience and asked him to refrain from such comments in the future during Blizzard events.
[+] [-] stevenkovar|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eric-hu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ben_jones|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] euix|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] homulilly|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LinuxBender|6 years ago|reply
This sounds to me like a design problem. If you don't want to risk someone expressing an opinion, then give them a drop down of things they can choose from to say. "zug zug" "LokTar O'Gar!"
If you want a social platform where people can express opinions, then keep that thing distanced far away from anything where money, competition, politics, etc... are involved. People will do what people can do. In this circumstance, humans were set up for failure and they will fail again. Keep the social platform identifiable names away from names used in a competition.
[+] [-] manicdee|6 years ago|reply
What counts as a developed country if it isn’t giant pools of money that every corporation around the world wants to be involved in?
[+] [-] 4b11b4|6 years ago|reply
Much more than about a video game...
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Haga|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hanselot|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] impowski|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] curiousgal|6 years ago|reply
If a large portion of Blizzard's players hadn't been Chinese they wouldn't have reacted that way. So to me, Blizzard is the victim here, they were put in a lose-lose situation.
Regardless, I don't see how a company refusing to have its events politicized is considered so bad.
If people are so adamant about sticking it to China, they should boycott their actual products instead.