• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Oct 25, 2017
2,644
I had a discussion in another thread about what exactly we expect Blizzard to do from here: that is, if there are any concessions we can get out of them at this stage that are (a) practical and possible, given their Chinese interests, and (b) believable and acceptable to the player community.

Here's what I said:

I think we all understand that it would be totally impractical for Blizzard to actually take the bold stance against China that some of us really want. Their foothold in China is firmly planted (thanks in large part to WC3, in fact) and they've been cultivating their ties to that market for years. I also understand if people are open to considering the initial incident (the disciplinary action against Blitzchung) settled, given that Blitzchung himself has had a productive conversation with Blizzard representatives and is willing to consider his side of the matter closed.

In the short term, however, this isn't just about Blizzard being under the thumb of China, but their intellectual dishonesty about it. J Allen Brack's statement yesterday may have done more to prolong the conflict than resolve it. It's true that a lot of people will never be comfortable throwing money at them again no matter what they do, if they haven't outright uninstalled everything and deleted their accounts. But in my case—where I have a lot of Blizzard balance banked up from in-game activities and throwing money at them isn't the issue, the main thing they're losing from me is exposure and engagement, and I'm embedded enough in Blizzard-adjacent communities that I'd like to support external entities (like pro players or e-sports partner companies that run their own events) with a clear conscience—it would go a long, long way for them to issue a clear apology that acknowledges the legitimacy of the complaints instead of saying "See, this actually complies with our values if you squint just the right way," and specifically addresses/retracts that statement on Weibo that everyone has seen, which frames this as a matter of Chinese national dignity. They need to take ownership of having created a hostile environment instead of pretending they acted to keep it diverse and safe. I will also be watching for them to take a free hand with permitting pro-HK speech and symbols at BlizzCon and in their online services instead of applying it to chat/username censors that apply outside of China.

These are concrete and achievable in the here and now. We need to see some leadership here, some sign that they're willing to put themselves on the line in even the smallest and most realistic ways. There are a lot of customers they'll never get back, but they need to rebuild some trust and goodwill, and quickly. Any acceptable movement from them on this issue would risk blowback from China; of course it would. Reasonable people understand there are boundaries to what Blizzard can do. But their current statement reeks of active, fawning complicity.

I think this might be a conversation worth having here. What can we press them to do in the short term? They're not just going to pull out of China or take action that would blow up their Chinese partnerships overnight; we've already heard one thing from the top and it's clear Brack doesn't have the guts or the leverage of an Adam Silver. So what now? This isn't just about Blitzchung anymore; he and Blizzard have arrived at terms and he is willing to move forward. Which doesn't make Blizzard's response acceptable to the rest of us.

Quick summary of what I consider to be proportionate and reasonable demands:
- A proper apology
- An acknowledgement that they failed their values, not a clumsy spin that argues those values were met
- An explicit acknowledgement/retraction of what Blizzard is telling Chinese players about defending their national interest
- Removal of newly introduced restrictions on pro-Hong Kong messages in usernames, chat, and official forums; amnesty for related bans
- No action against pro-Hong Kong speech and symbols at BlizzCon (notwithstanding anything so disruptive it would have been penalized regardless, within existing convention policy)

Ideally I'd like to see a far stronger show of independence from Chinese interests than that, like the lifting of the policy that misrepresents Overwatch's Taiwan team as "Chinese Taipei" (explicitly a political stance on Blizzard's part to comply with state interests)—but again, let's think of small and concrete steps that are achievable in the short term.

What else should we be asking for?
 

Cincaid

Member
Oct 28, 2017
687
Sweden
What a PR mess this is for Blizzard. But what's interesting to me is that I see a lot of GG idiots bandwagon on Blizzard as well over this, especially the horrible TheQuartering. I'm not sure what that says about the situation, but I guess for GG and the likes free speech triumph anything else, combined with some good ol' China hatred.
 

Aspen

Banned
Oct 10, 2019
26
What a PR mess this is for Blizzard. But what's interesting to me is that I see a lot of GG idiots bandwagon on Blizzard as well over this, especially the horrible TheQuartering. I'm not sure what that says about the situation, but I guess for GG and the likes free speech triumph anything else, combined with some good ol' China hatred.
GG has been targeting California game companies like Sony and Blizzard for their supposedly SJW agenda.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
49,993
What a PR mess this is for Blizzard. But what's interesting to me is that I see a lot of GG idiots bandwagon on Blizzard as well over this, especially the horrible TheQuartering. I'm not sure what that says about the situation, but I guess for GG and the likes free speech triumph anything else, combined with some good ol' China hatred.
I don't think that it necessarily speaks of a genuine interest in free speech. It's more likely that they're invested in seeing Blizzard brought down because they've been promoting diversity through their character (well, moreso in some regions than others) and so bringing them down can be viewed as a victory for the status quo.

The "performative wokeness" argument is commonly used to diminish social justice concerns. The idea is that no one actually cares and it's just for show, which is a much easier position to take if you're a straight cis white guy who actually does have no stake in these concerns. The twist is that performative wokeness is a thing, and we see that with Blizzard, but part of the claim is essentially treating this as totally universal (which it probably is for corporations but isn't for people).
 

TazKa

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,016
Being less punitive on the subject should have been the first decision? How about not punishing anyone for speaking up against oppression by a genocidal regime.

Because it is on Blizzards stream and they have rules that participants accepted.
Do we want that everyone after a tournament makes political statements.

Speaking up against oppression by China is another part that I can only say of course should everyone be able to speak his mind as a private person.

Blizzard deserves every bit of criticism for their first stance, and the part backroll is too little too late, but they are a company too.
 

Nacho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,110
NYC
Lol even with the reduced punishment, it's significantly worse than any overwatch league players recieveed for legitimately harmful actions that did more than just 'break the rules'. Speaks to where their priorities are... Which is directly contrary to what they're saying. Not having anything to do with their relationship with China my fucking ass.
 

Baalzebup

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,711
Because it is on Blizzards stream abd they have rules that participants accepted.
Do we want that everyone after a tournament makes political statements.

Speaking up against oppression by China is another part that I can only say of course should everyone be able to speak his mind as a private person.

Blizzard deserves every bit of criticism for their first stance, and the part backroll is too little too late, but they ara company too.
You realize that the 'rule' that was quoted to have been broken was essentially "don't do anything we might disapprove" without specifying anything even resembling actual guidelines. And yes, we want everyone making anti-genocide, anti-oppression, anti-nazi statements after a tournament. All of the tournaments, in all of e-sports.

The fucking word 'politics' is being misused when the policies are basically about if a certain group of people should be treated as fellow humans instead of second class citizens at best, insects to be crushed and tormented at worst. The very act of banning the person making these kinds statements is also a statement on the subject, and one directly opposed to basic human decency at that.
 

Lyng

Editor at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,206
Strange still since the party no longer represent communistic policy but I digress.

All successful companies are either owned by the state or, in cases like Huawei and Lenovo have extremely close ties with the government. So in that aspect China is very much still communist.
 

Cincaid

Member
Oct 28, 2017
687
Sweden
I don't think that it necessarily speaks of a genuine interest in free speech. It's more likely that they're invested in seeing Blizzard brought down because they've been promoting diversity through their character (well, moreso in some regions than others) and so bringing them down can be viewed as a victory for the status quo.

The "performative wokeness" argument is commonly used to diminish social justice concerns. The idea is that no one actually cares and it's just for show, which is a much easier position to take if you're a straight cis white guy who actually does have no stake in these concerns. The twist is that performative wokeness is a thing, and we see that with Blizzard, but part of the claim is essentially treating this as totally universal (which it probably is for corporations but isn't for people).

Ah I see. Thanks for a great explanation!
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,956
I don't know what shocks me more, that this guy is still drawing comics, that they're still every bit as abysmally, migraine-inducingly terrible, or that they still have all the subtlety of being hit by a sledgehammer taped to the windshield of a speeding double decker bus.

On second thought, I'm only shocked by the first of the above.

i have to ask, why is it a big deal that Chinese money defeated their Spine creature? Like, unless it has Windfury, then it should just go to Blizzard's turn next. Was Blizzard at 1 HP with 0 cards in deck and therefore would die after that? If so, why not just go for the face, since the Spine doesn't have Taunt?

This doesn't make any sense!
 

Deleted member 10551

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,031
I had a discussion in another thread about what exactly we expect Blizzard to do from here: that is, if there are any concessions we can get out of them at this stage that are (a) practical and possible, given their Chinese interests, and (b) believable and acceptable to the player community.

I don't think there is anything they can do. Any concessions they make would almost certainly be temporary and reversed. The only thing that would satisfy me they would never do, and that's pull out of the Chinese market entirely due to the actions of the Chinese government. That's the only thing that would make me believe they were sincere at all.

The severity and enthusiasm of their actions make it to where there really is no walking back. I can't think of any other dev where I can't see a path to redemption for their misdeeds, but what Blizzard did at the size and scale they did it- it's just impossible.
 

Deleted member 5596

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,747
All successful companies are either owned by the state or, in cases like Huawei and Lenovo have extremely close ties with the government. So in that aspect China is very much still communist.

Having ties with the government is not "communist" at all, many companies around the world have ties with governments or government financing private companies. Musk received hundreds of millions from public money.

And around the world many companies providing public basic services are owned by governments. Is part of 'social democracy' which is not exactly communist either.

China is basically a capitalist country in all except name. There's nothing of communism 8n it's economic policies.
 

Lyng

Editor at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,206
Having ties with the government is not "communist" at all, many companies around the world have ties with governments or government financing private companies. Musk received hundreds of millions from public money.

And around the world many companies providing public basic services are owned by governments. Is part of 'social democracy' which is not exactly communist either.

China is basically a capitalist country in all except name. There's nothing of communism 8n it's economic policies.

Having ties is very mild way of putting it. The amount of influence the chinese government puts on its companies is very different than purely capitalist countries.
I know what a social democracy is since I live in one, and very much enjoy it. I would never want Denmark to become communist instead.
Edit: I should probably say that I have relatives who where imprisoned and tortured in the east german communist regime, and thus that obviously paints the way I view those kinds of regimes.
That having been said I dont believe a capitalist society is good or let alone better just to be clear.
 

Deleted member 23212

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
11,225
Why is China, I'm assuming it's suppose to be China, being represented by the symbol of the Soviet Union?
Because Tim Buckley is not a very smart man.
Just a hop, skip and jump away from Russia. Practically the same thing I guess.
It's the flag of the CCP (the party that controls China):
Flag_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party.svg
 

Sheldon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,331
Ruhrgebiet, Germany
Hoeg Law put up a video on this statement, it's pretty blistering coming from a corporate lawyer.


Interesting point he makes: The rule Blizzard cited to justify Blitzchung's suspension could also be used to punish pro-HK statements made outside the context of Hearthstone esports in one's private life or on personal social media accounts.

I was aware that the rule was deliberately vaguely written to cover anything Blizzard doesn't like, and not a specific warning against political messaeges like Blizzard wants to you to believe, but it had slipped past me how their claim that it's about keeping livestreams focused on the game is also total BS.
 

Finaj

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,359
I have a related question: is bringing up the Blizzard boycott/protest in threads related to Blizzard's products considered a thread derailment?
 
Last edited:

Bufbaf

Don't F5!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,642
Hamburg, Germany
I have a related question: is bringing up the Blizzard boycott/protest in every thread related to Blizzard's products considered a thread derailment?
Why are you asking me, did I do this? If so, it wasn't on purpose.

But no, I don't think so. If we agree on it being fine bringing up asshole behaviour of asshole devs or youtubers in the threads about said game or video - which we did and it's fine - I don't think it would be wrong to do what's basically the same with Blizzard related threads. But you should really ask a moderator, not me.

edit: I thought someone would actually repost that stupic CAD comic but then I scrolled up again and noticed what happened. Thanks, I hate it! <3
 

Finaj

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,359
Why are you asking me, did I do this? If so, it wasn't on purpose.

But no, I don't think so. If we agree on it being fine bringing up asshole behaviour of asshole devs or youtubers in the threads about said game or video - which we did and it's fine - I don't think it would be wrong to do what's basically the same with Blizzard related threads. But you should really ask a moderator, not me.

Oh no, I was just asking in general. Not to you specifically. Sorry if quoting your post made it seem that way.
 

Rosa Lilium

Member
Oct 27, 2017
391
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Just look at the last few pages of this forums' "Warcraft 3 some new icons and artwork" thread.

Not gonna happen, not even close. If people on Era of all sites actively mock the protesters and gloat about buying the game, you can be pretty sure there's not gonna be a substantial boycot of any sorts.

There's a higher chance than usual the boycott will work as this is an issue that seems to unite both right wing and left wing gamers.

However, I think the meme battle as well as filling their communities and events with pro-HK messaging is likely to have a greater effect. It'll either force Blizzard to stay heavy handed increasingly the likelihood of a large scale boycott or actually get them banned in China.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,644
There's a higher chance than usual the boycott will work as this is an issue that seems to unite both right wing and left wing gamers.

However, I think the meme battle as well as filling their communities and events with pro-HK messaging is likely to have a greater effect. It'll either force Blizzard to stay heavy handed increasingly the likelihood of a large scale boycott or actually get them banned in China.

Yes, this. People voicing their frustration, circulating screenshots of their account deletions, keeping the issue alive, and normalizing opposition to complicity with China in Blizzard-related spaces—that's the effect we should be looking for, and the only one we're in a position to assess. Even in Hong Kong itself, a sizeable part of the populace can't afford to be out on the streets, risking arrest, and facing the police themselves; a sizeable population that supports the cause can't afford to put their jobs on the line if their employers are cracking down on active participation in the protests. We shouldn't be so crass as to say, shame on everybody who isn't acting. That's counterproductive in the long run.

Remember that Blizzard has internal metrics to look at and we don't. It's possible that Brack thought he could get away with this sort of statement because he looked at the numbers and thought losing all of Hong Kong overnight, plus a small chunk of the most engaged Blizzard players who are constantly following Blizzard news (but who therefore have the hardest time extricating themselves), was a hit they could afford to take.

I never have much faith in the commercial damage inflicted by boycotts anyway. Participation in them is mainly for your own conscience. The call may be to hit their bottom line, but the real impact is from the reputation sticking—the way that a certain reputation has stuck to EA over matters that are less severe, and is part of every conversation about EA in enthusiast spaces (with a noticeable impact on releases like Battlefront II, which was the last time an industry story like this reached media and government on a large scale), despite how their FIFA/Madden portfolio still pulls reliable numbers from the masses every year. Certain players are far too embedded in Blizzard's world in their daily social/recreational lives to really pull out fully, but you can trust that even they may be a little less comfortable with a loot box here, a cosmetic microtransaction there. Less streaming exposure, less enthusiastic word of mouth.

That impact may sound infinitesimal, but it counts, and we shouldn't presume that people who still want to play Blizzard games are doing nothing or contributing nothing. The most engaged Blizzard players, who can't quite cut themselves off 100% overnight, are still the people we need on our side—like the Hearthstone casters or pros in other games who have contracts to fulfil, and aren't as fortunate as Brian Kibler into a position where they can pull out in the short term, but who have voiced their disappointment nevertheless.
 

sugarmonkey

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
515
I put in a request to have my account deleted. It's really the absolute least I can do to support Hong Kong and send a message to Blizzard. It's also the 2nd time I've ever put my money where my mouth is in 35+ years of gaming (Battlefront 2). Again, the very least I can do, but in a world run by corporate interests, the only thing that may have an impact is joining in with others to affect their bottom line.

I do understand why some may scoff or even mock this approach. For many of us, gaming is some of the only control we may have in our lives, real or imagined, and the thought of giving that up is unsavory.
 

The Last Laugh

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Dec 31, 2018
1,440
Just curious if anyone has posted Blitz's response to Blizzard's post. Not that I expect it to affect or change anything just curious
 

Arcus Felis

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,123
... That actually would be very funny if such a thing unfolded (the Winnie the Pooh cosplay).