
Regarding Last Weekend’s Hearthstone Grandmasters Tournament - tempsy
https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/blizzard/23185888/regarding-last-weekend-s-hearthstone-grandmasters-tournament
======
falcolas
I might believe this, if the American team who made the exact same statement
(pro-Hong Kong) in a virtually identical context (on a stream with
shoutcasters) had received the same punishment.

They didn’t. They didn’t receive any punishment, they were immediately moved
on to the next match.

So, Blizzard is not acting any anything resembling consistently on this
matter. Some voices matter more than others; in this case Blizzard’s business
with China has proven to matter more than allowing someone to “share their
point of view”.

#boycottblizzard still stands.

~~~
darepublic
Well the real test of hypocrisy is if someone made a statement in support of
China on the same topic in a streamed event. Or if someone made a comment
about any divisive issue from any side. Note I am saying it's a test of
hypocrisy not whether their policy is "moral" or not

~~~
bcrosby95
The reality is companies are in the politics of pandering to gain the largest
audience possible. Blizzard is perfectly fine with western participants
wearing things such as gay pride clothing (sadly a social/political issue)
because it's popular with their audience. But they don't like what happened
here because it isn't popular with their audience in China.

So of course it has to do with China. If they knew it wouldn't get them kicked
out, and most of their potential players in China supported the issue, they
wouldn't have cared. Because that's exactly how they handle social/political
issues in the west.

------
bipolar_lisper
Blizzard:

> If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and
> deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.

Also Blizzard:

> We will defend the pride of our nation (that nation being China)

So when will they be terminating the people in their company that posted that
announcement on behalf of the company? Oh wait, they won't be, because this
company is completely and utterly full of shit. This is a company that will
ban players for using naughty words, but won't ban a country from the market
place for actual real life atrocities. People like this make me ashamed to be
American. Honesty and integrity mean nothing in this country. All people care
about is whether you use nice words.

~~~
floatingatoll
The word “nation” as you quoted above isn’t present in the post by Blizzard
linked here. Is your quote from another Blizzard statement somewhere?

~~~
Pfhreak
It was posted by Blizzard's partner in China, NetEase, on an official Blizzard
account on weibo.

~~~
Maxious
[https://au.ign.com/articles/2019/10/10/verified-chinese-
bliz...](https://au.ign.com/articles/2019/10/10/verified-chinese-blizzard-
account-doubles-down-on-political-policy)

------
ayakura
My own take throughout the whole thing is similar to Brian Kibler's [1]. To
me, even though it made sense that Blizzard wanted to stay neutral, the
punishment was too severe for all of the people involved (zero prize money, 1
year ban) so it's nice that at least one of them was reverted.

[1]: [http://bmkgaming.com/statement-on-
blitzchung/](http://bmkgaming.com/statement-on-blitzchung/)

Sidenote, Linus is reading the statement on the WAN show and he mentioned that
Blizzard was "Lawful Evil." That's a pretty solid way to put it

~~~
aasasd
Dunno about version 3 or later, but in the classic system ‘lawful’ means
adhering to strict principles and ‘evil’ means selfish with disregard to
others. So I'm pretty sure Blizzard is either chaotic or neutral, what with it
trying to appease both sides at once. And probably neutral on the good-evil
axis, since it passably honestly trades its games for the money.

~~~
ethbro
Are there any multinationals that aren't chaotic evil, posing as lawful
neutral?

------
aasasd
> _If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and
> deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same._

So now some Chinese player should make a statement praising China and
condemning Hong Kong.

(But I've already said it: with Blizzard controlling a huge money market in
WoW and China being big on farming that gold all day every day, there's zero
chance Blizzard would give that up.)

~~~
aasasd
By the way, does anyone know what the estimates are for the size of the in-
game economy in WoW: items, characters, currency/jewelry, etc? I've heard some
claims that would sober me right up, but dunno if those were too fictional.

~~~
ethbro
If you're talking in real-world currency, then the size of the ingame economy
is the sum of the maximums each player would be willing to spend for things in
the game.

Any other calculations are just cryptocurrency-esque market cap dreams.

~~~
y4mi
its not as clear cut in WoW's case. you got blizzard selling game time tokens
which players can sell on the auction house for atm ~230k gold.

and this isnt just an option, but something done extremely frequently. tokens
are usually sold within one day.

(and blizzard takes ~40% more € for that token than a subscription would take,
so blizzard actually has a _massive_ profit margin there)

~~~
ethbro
How is that not as clear?

The real world money to purchase those token (and anything else) come from
_people_. Those people do not have infinite resources to spend on the game.

Ergo, if you exhaust their real world resources, and then offer them the best
item in the game for $1, they wouldn't take it.

At that point, you've got the value of the total in-game economy. Because
anything virtual after that would be worthless.

(Subject to demand curve, etc. But in aggregate it boils down to the same
point.)

(You might be able to make the case that speculators without interest in the
game would come in at that point to buy items, but I'd question how many would
take the risk after the playerbase was already financially drained)

~~~
y4mi
its not so clear because while your argument is true - people are only gonna
spent disposable money on this - it can nonetheless be directly linked to
actual transactions which happen at an incredibly frequent rate.

there is an actual cashflow happening - and not just for speculation like with
cryptocurrencies - as people are actually spending the ingame currencies on
their respective markets, which often removes the money from the market
entirely. (not everything you buy ingame is sold by players)

------
belltaco
Summary of changes made:

* Blitzchung will receive all his prize money.

* Bliztchung's suspension from pro play halved to 6 months

* Casters will now be allowed to cast Blizzard events after 6 months

Key statements:

* In hindsight, our process wasn’t adequate, and we reacted too quickly

* The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision.

* We have these rules to keep the focus on the game and on the tournament to the benefit of a global audience, and that was the only consideration in the actions we took.

* If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.

Source: Reddit comment

~~~
Arwill
Imagine a comparable situation. Someone wins an olympic medal, and makes a
political statement in the subsequent interview. Then the olympic committee
decides to take the medal away, and ban the winner from competing again.

------
undefined3840
I’m not a gamer, but I imagine most are smart enough to see through this
cringe-y PR disaster. Late Friday night dump of nonsense corporate speak is
painfully predictable. This will do more harm than good. Yikes.

~~~
bipolar_lisper
Oh they absolutely are not. You should see the way people have always, and
will always defend this company.

~~~
minimaxir
Scanning social media, I haven't seen a single gaming influencer say it's a
sufficient statement:
[https://twitter.com/search?q=filter%3Averified%20https%3A%2F...](https://twitter.com/search?q=filter%3Averified%20https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FBlizzard_Ent%2Fstatus%2F1182813270639431681&src=typed_query&f=live)

The contrarian viewpoint is "what were you expecting?" in which case the reply
is "an actual apology."

~~~
Pfhreak
Or even a hamfisted attempt at an apology like you get out of many PR
departments. The only thing that remotely resembles an apology in the whole
release is:

> In hindsight, our process wasn’t adequate, and we reacted too quickly.

No explanation of how that happened. No discussion about what they are doing
to make sure it doesn't happen again. It's not even saying, "We made a snap
decision and it was wrong." It seems to be saying, "We made all the right
decisions, but we're going to tune the degree a little."

~~~
gremlinsinc
They did a much better job apologizing to China.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/dfkmp1/blizzards_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/dfkmp1/blizzards_official_weibo_account_just_posted_an/)

Had they not done that they might be believable, but because of the way the
kowtow to china, definitely hard to find any honesty/truth in their statement.

------
cpeterso
Ellen Pao (former Reddit CEO):

 _" Tech companies: We tolerate harassment and hate so we can enable political
dissent, public squares, free speech

Also tech companies: Censor the Hong Kong protestors and kill all their
communication channels"_

[https://twitter.com/ekp/status/1182710608887611394?s=21](https://twitter.com/ekp/status/1182710608887611394?s=21)

~~~
anonimouse5t43w
Didn’t she ban a lot of subreddits?

~~~
bertil
Reddit has to make a lot of decisions, some were soon after she joined. Not
sure CEOs of social media company get involved in making that decision
personally, rather than name people who would -- Pao might be an exception,
though.

From all the subreddits that were closed, I’d be hard-pressed to name one that
I felt contributed to free speech.

~~~
A2017U1
> I’d be hard-pressed to name one that I felt contributed to free speech.

As in US Constitution free speech? I can think of dozens.

r/SanctionedSuicide

r/DarknetMarkets

r/shoplifting

r/gore

r/watchpeopledie

~~~
harimau777
I don't know enough about the situation to take a definite position.

However, it seems to me that free speech is intended to protect the expression
of unpopular viewpoints. In that case, I think that we should protect people's
right to advocate that suicide, shoplifting, or advocating watching people die
should be legal.

However, as long as those things are not legal then it doesn't necessarily
violate free speech to restrict the practices themselves or information on how
to engage in the practices.

~~~
A2017U1
Actually spent quite a while going through the list of banned subs to
eliminate contentious ones, gotta make commenters work for it :)

They are a US based website subject to those laws, even if those words posted
on their site didn't violate laws, it's entirely legal for them to censor at
will for any reason they deem ok.

------
Pfhreak
Not a great look. This line:

> The actions that we took over the weekend are causing people to question if
> we are still committed to these values. We absolutely are and I will
> explain.

Is basically saying, "What we did actually exemplifies our values", or maybe
saying, "Well actually, our values..."

Combined with the complete lack of acknowledgement of wrongdoing and not
addressing their initial online response at all, I don't expect this will
smooth things over at all.

~~~
diminoten
Lack of acknowledgement? They reduced the penalties, both for the casters and
the player...

~~~
Pfhreak
From 'far too severe' to 'too severe'? They basically doubled down and said
they had done the right thing.

~~~
diminoten
I'm sorry if you don't know what "acknowledge" means, but reducing the penalty
is an acknowledgement, even if you don't think it's enough.

------
ixtli
It’s extremely irresponsible for blizzard to host a massive platform for
speech and pretend that platform exists in a vacuum outside of current events.
(Read: politics.) In the same way that public platforms are dangerous when
used for hate speech, they’re also dangerous when those advocating for
positive change are banned from them.

Whatever Blizzard set out to do, it’s exceptionally naive not to acknowledge
that demand changes a public technology.

… but of course we know what this is about. We know it’s about not wanting to
cut off a large revenue stream.

~~~
anonimouse5t43w
FIFA also bans politics from its platform.

~~~
ixtli
I didn't know that as I'm not up on soccer, but I'm not surprised. This is
liberal ideology at its most pure, and it leads to a great many of the social
problems we have today. Some know taking a moral position will disenfranchise
some subset and reduce their income, and some know that society would recoil
(usually rightly!) at their views if they were forced to spell them out.

~~~
harimau777
Are you perhaps using "liberal ideology" in a way that's different than what
I'm used to? It seems that Blizzard's decisions were made in service of
Capitalism which is a belief system that I associate more with conservative
rather than liberal ideology.

------
blzrdnofreespch
Some people think China wrote some or all of this response:

[https://mobile.twitter.com/SGBluebell/status/118281758814705...](https://mobile.twitter.com/SGBluebell/status/1182817588147052544)

~~~
lisp-missionary
I highly recommend anyone following this thread to take a look at those tweets
and replies.

I thought there was some awkward speech but didnt realize why.

What are prizings? This definitely was not written by an English speaker which
takes it from corporate BS to totally creepy.

------
randallsquared
> _We now believe he should receive his prizing. We understand that for some
> this is not about the prize, and perhaps for others it is disrespectful to
> even discuss it. That is not our intention._

It's a little weird that they say they "believe he should receive" his prize,
rather than saying that he actually will. It's hard to think of a reason they
would word it that way, except to give the false impression that he's getting
the prize he won.

~~~
natch
Wow yes that really is odd, thanks for pointing it out. Not proud to say it,
but their statement fooled me (made me skim right past it thinking what they
wanted me to think) the first time.

------
dkural
False equivalence. One group is oppressing the other group, and the oppressed
are told to shut up because the oppressor's feelings will get hurt and will
make the Blizzard's community feel less diverse and inclusive .. facepalm ..

------
icu
It's a soft peddle statement drafted by the PR department hoping the
mainstream media would pick it up. There are too many contradictions between:

a) what was said in the statement, and Blizzard's statement made on Chinese
social media at the time, and

b) the lack of discipline on American tournament players who also protested.

Furthermore a written statement is nothing compared to a video, where vocal
intonation and body language communicates a lot.

Bottom line, releasing this statement will only intensify criticism that
Blizzard is "Lawfully Evil".

The irony is that Blizzard's fanbase are 'heroes' who overcome evil in their
games. Blizzard's actions are the very antithesis of their player bases'
psychology.

This isn't over, and with Blizzcon around the corner, I predict escalation and
Blizzcon being a total PR disaster.

------
zwaps
Digusting. If that had happened in the context of any other unimportant
country, where no launch of a mobile game is planned, and which is not in a
habit of crying and shouting down foreign press and companies, then Blizzard
would have done nothing.

In fact, the language used here, about openness and 'feeling welcome' (cf hurt
feelings) comes close to the CCP phrasebook. CCP, to remind you, has publicly
stated that opinions on China affairs from foreigners and utterings that make
people feel unwelcome ot hurt feelings, are not free speech.

HK people are fighting for their freedom and their lives. They need public
support in the West to have a chance. Blizzard sanctioning them or others for
this shows abundently clear on which side this company is!

------
PavlovsCat
> One of our goals at Blizzard is to make sure that every player, everywhere
> in the world, regardless of political views, religious beliefs, race,
> gender, or any other consideration always feels safe [..] playing our games

This HN comment from 6 years ago comes to mind:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6154475](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6154475)

~~~
b0ner_t0ner
Could that have been Grummz?
[https://twitter.com/Grummz/status/1181736075775004672](https://twitter.com/Grummz/status/1181736075775004672)

~~~
PavlovsCat
No idea if he is, but thanks for that. Here it is in a more readable format,
or least, in a not-on-Twitter format :)

\-------------

This hurts. But until Blizzard reverses their decision on blitzchungHS I am
giving up playing Classic WoW, which I helped make and helped convince
Blizzard to relaunch. There will be no Mark of Kern guild after all.

Let me explain why I am #BoycottBlizzard.

I am ethnically Chinese. I was born in Taiwan and I lived in Hong Kong for a
time. I have done buisiness with China for many years, with serveral gaming
companies there.

So I think I have a valid perspective here, having been a Team Lead at
Blizzard and having grown up in Asia.

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.

I’ve also seen how American company reps in China have been offered similar
bribes to get licenses for large AAA titles. Not everyone refused like I did.

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.

Unfortunately, US and European companies are loath to take risks and invest in
game companies legally as much as China was. China remained one of the few
places mid tier studios could get funding.

So again, China influence grew. I’m sure this is the same for movies as well.

But now we are in a situation where unlimited Communist money dictates our
American values. We censor our games for China, we censor our movies for
China.

Now, game companies are silencing voices for freedom and democracy.

China is dictating that the world be authoritarian.

Of all the companies in the world, Blizzard is the LAST company I ever
expected to give in to China’s demands.

Blizzard was always about “gamer first” and “don’t be greedy.”

At least, it was when I was there.

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.

I take a huge risk by saying this. China monitors all social media and I know
this means that we will probably never get an investment from China for my new
MMO, and probably never get a license to operate there.

But enough is enough. I stand with Hong Kong, and I oppose Blizzard’s obvious
and laughably transparent fear of China.

It’s time for Blizzard to grow the spine it used to have, and to do what’s
right for gamers once again.

Gamers, rise up.

And yes, this means I will be refusing any deal for Epic exclusivity. The
money comes from Tencent. Em8ER will never be an Epic game store exclusive.

This might mean we never make a dime, but more is at stake now than just
games. A line has to be drawn, and I’m drawing it now.

------
egdod
Just shameful. They are taking the side of a repressive regime over a player
expressing support for _universal_ values.

Mealy-mouthed corpospeak will not save you now.

------
anonymousiam
Why would Blizzard bother to lie about this? I guess they're trying to recover
from all of the negative press, but it looks like they're just digging
themselves into a deeper hole.

~~~
TillE
The lies are weird. They're claiming they would have snapped off a 12 month
ban for saying any political slogan, which is...insane. Wildly
disproportionate. Not even a little plausible.

There's no explanation for Blizzard's actions that does not include feared
pressure from China, and it's just insulting for them to claim otherwise.

------
ekianjo
Wow so many lines of PR fluff to basically say we have to make sure everyone
obeys China's view of the world. blizzard, that post was completely useless
unless you wanted to reinforce the impression you have no values other than
big profits.

------
scruple
Reads like a typical corporate response. Sanitized by lawyers, PR, and
executives. It says nothing substantial. It's trying to ride the middle ground
but it's just flat out contradictory in the face of their actions these past
few days.

Very sad. Whatever piece of the original Blizzard may have been left in Irvine
is surely on life support from the beating that Activision has been giving it
for the last decade(s).

~~~
icu
I just don't think there is any of the original Blizzard left, except maybe
the artists. WoW has tanked in gameplay, the Diablo franchise has been
starved, and then forced into something it's not... Heroes of the Storm has
been killed off, Starcraft has been starved. Classic WoW (old IP), Hearthstone
(lets be fair it's a casual mobile game) and Overwatch (just another shooter)
are pretty much it sadly.

------
bcrosby95
The grammar in this post seems really awkward. It's almost like they cobbled
together 3-4 different people's statements, didn't proof read it, then
released it. Strange considering they waited so long.

------
anm89
If I had to translate this from corporate speak into the real world it would
go something like "fuck off, we are following the money"

------
mewse-hn
This part descends to absurdity:

> Every Voice Matters, and we strongly encourage everyone in our community to
> share their viewpoints in the many places available to express themselves.
> However, the official broadcast needs to be about the tournament and to be a
> place where all are welcome. In support of that, we want to keep the
> official channels focused on the game.

One of their core values is "every voice matters" and with this paragraph they
are trying to twist it from what it actually means, to supporting their
decision to suppress dissent

~~~
nmca
Right? It's fucked to the point of comical absurdity. How on earth did they
let anyone write this?

------
hprotagonist
Ah, yes. Mealy-mouthed corporate nonsense. That'll shut the rabble up!

------
caconym_
It's not even hard to avoid giving Blizzard money these days.

I suppose one must immerse oneself in the scientific system of Mao Zedong
thought to see the truth—that Diablo is best played on a smartphone.

------
mirimir
That piece is for sure loaded with weasel wording.

But on the other hand, blitzchung might have said or done many things during
his segment. And just about everyone who is upset about Blizzard booting
blitzchung here would demand that they boot him for at least some of those.
Say, if he had ranted about gender issues, for example.

As always, perceptions depend on whose ox is getting gored.

------
chloerei
I support Blizzard's decision, it kept the bottom line. I feel ridiculous, in
order to support the riots in another country, some people were so passionate.
I think this people are affected by anti-China sentiment.

I write a post, tell everyone what happened in Hong Kong and try to persuade
everyone not to make political opinions so easily, especially if a place is
very far away from you.

Stand with Hong Kong, but which side? [https://chloerei.com/2019/10/11/stand-
with-hong-kong-but-whi...](https://chloerei.com/2019/10/11/stand-with-hong-
kong-but-which-side/)

The content may make you uncomfortable because it is different from the
reporting position of some Western media. But looking at the problem from
multiple angles will give you a more comprehensive understanding.

~~~
dang
I agree with you that in the discussions of these issues on the Western
internet sites, anti-China sentiment dominates and often blends with ignorance
and prejudice. Unfortunately, if you post like you just did to HN, using
inflammatory language like "I saw the hypocrisy of the Americans", you're
guaranteed to take the thread further into nationalistic flamewar, and of
course such language will be downvoted because it breaks HN's guidelines too
([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)).
So if you're going to continue to post on HN, can you please make sure that
your comments stay factual and neutral, and don't pour fuel on the fire? We
ask the same of every user here.

~~~
chloerei
Thanks for reply, I have edited the comments to more gentle.

------
14
I have a question, what if he was to thank his mom while on a broadcast that
would not be about the content of the game either will he be banned for that?
Talk about foot in your mouth Blizzard now we can all count down to Blizzcon
and watch the fireworks I am sure there will be.

------
minimaxir
> The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision
> we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on
> our decision.

Needless to say, this line has generated a very large amount of snark on
social media.

~~~
freeflight
I don't see any way they could have addressed that without the hysteria still
spinning it negatively.

Because it's not like they mention that out of nowhere: They are directly
referring to accusations that they were pressured into shutting that
particular player down by the Chinese government.

There's a whole lot of people out there who will not be satisfied with any
answer contradicting that narrative.

Heck, even if Blizzard went out there and would fully admit "The Chinese
government pressured us to shut this particular player down", then people
would complain how Blizzard could ever buckle to those demands in the first
place.

The reality is that nobody needed to pressure Blizzard because its competitive
scene has already seen quite a number of bans, some controversial, many not,
over players using the spotlight to share their particular political messages.

It's nothing new and just like they explain in the statement: They do this
regardless of the political views being aired, they just consider it not a
platform for that.

Very comparable to how the Olympics are supposed to be an "unpolitical event",
at least in theory.

~~~
ethbro
_> Heck, even if Blizzard went out there and would fully admit "The Chinese
government pressured us to shut this particular player down", then people
would complain how Blizzard could ever buckle to those demands in the first
place._

No.

There are two fan axes here: agreement and respect.

Companies (and your comment) seem to focus on the former, while being
completely oblivious to the latter.

If Blizzard had said "Our Chinese economic interests pressured us into doing
this" they would have faced intense disagreement.

But, they would have retained as least a modicum of respect.

Instead, they forfeited both.

And really? Putting out equivocal PR fluff in response to an issue in 2019?
Activision-Blizzard's entire Communications department should be sacked.

~~~
freeflight
> Instead, they forfeited both.

How did they forfeit both? Do we have any evidence for Blizzard being
pressured do this?

We absolutely have not, all we have is a bunch of social-media hysteria were
this claim originally came from, in complete ignorance of the fact that
Blizzard has banned plenty of pro-players before for voicing "negative speech"
[0].

In that context your response is exactly what I was referring to: People are
not interested in what actually happened, people only want to hear what they
THINK happened, even if there's zilch evidence backing it up and it never
actually happened.

Again: What evidence is there that Blizzard was pressured into doing this and
as such debunking their reaction as a straight-faced lie? There is none, while
there's a long list of other competitive players who've been banned for
exactly the same reason.

I do not even understand why this is so controversial on HN out of all places.
This whole comment section reads like Reddit, lots of appeals to emotions,
very little sticking to the facts at hand.

[0]
[https://liquipedia.net/overwatch/Banned_players](https://liquipedia.net/overwatch/Banned_players)

~~~
ethbro
You're taking a company's statement, that avoids any mention of money,
economic interests, or China, at face value?

I hear your point, but what would a smoking gun look like?

An email or recorded conversation from the CCP about the actions they would
take if Blizzard didn't keep the ban in place?

That positive confirmation bar seems unreasonably high.

~~~
freeflight
> An email or recorded conversation from the CCP about the actions they would
> take if Blizzard didn't keep the ban in place?

How about anything concrete that isn't just sheer hearsay and speculation out
of the social media sphere?

And yet you consider it outrageous that I take Blizz statement at face value?
I already explained my reasons for that: To me this ban is very in line with
other previous bans Blizzard issued.

That does not mean that I condone them or that I agree with them, but it gives
precedence to the situation, precedent that had absolutely nothing to do with
China.

We have precedent for Blizzard having banned players over political statements
before, we have no precedent for Blizzard having been pressured by the CCP to
do so. So what is the most likely thing that happened here?

~~~
ethbro
That seems like illogical reasoning.

The fact that Blizzard has banned people for making political statements
before does not mean that there were no ancillary motivations in this
instance.

You may feel otherwise, but I don't think a pattern of previous behavior
unambiguously resolves the motivation behind an action.

------
jerome-jh
"Our goal is to help players connect in areas of commonality". If you only
keep the intersection of all "cultures", you end up with a very small subset.

------
squaresmile
I feel like the original decision was so harsh and the optics of it was
incredibly bad that this "meet in the middle" resolution still doesn't cut it.
It's like when a post-mortem only contains: "In hindsight, our process wasn’t
adequate, and we reacted too quickly." and they don't elaborate more on the
inadequacy or the hastiness.

Maybe I just want blood but it feels pretty unsatisfying.

------
mellosouls
_I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our
decision_

~~~
zwaps
Yes, I too appreciate being lied to outright in a letter addressed to me

Makes me feel really positive about Blizzard

------
derefr
Question for all of y'all: what would happen if an Olympic athlete expressed
or signalled a strong political view (beyond just "my country good, your
country bad") during an official Olympic ceremony?

~~~
smacktoward
You mean like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute)
?

------
gpm
<can't delete>

~~~
belltaco
<can't delete>

~~~
caconym_
What statement? GP was "deleted".

------
mullingitover
Command + f "sorry": 0 results

Command + f "mistake": 0 results

Command + f "apologize": 0 results

They still aren't listening to a PR expert, and this is only going to throw
gasoline on the fire. This blog post [1] counseling Burning Man back in their
dumpster fire of pain when they switched to a lottery system is very
instructional, Blizzard should be following it to the letter if they intend to
get out of this hole.

[1] [https://alyssaroyse.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/burning-the-
man...](https://alyssaroyse.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/burning-the-man-burning-
mans-ticket-pr-fiasco/)

~~~
taneq
> They still aren't listening to a PR expert, and this is only going to throw
> gasoline on the fire.

Of course, if they _had_ listened to a PR expert and written a first-rate
apology letter, then we'd be calling them out as insincere and saying it was
just PR fluff, a la the StackExchange letter recently.

~~~
KhalilK
They were put in a lose-lose situation from the start.

~~~
SN76477
I agree.

Something to remember is China was a much different place 10 years ago when
Blizzard started being distributed there.

I don’t see this as being about the money as much as it is about really
freaking complicated relationships. You can’t turn off a billion dollar
business in an afternoon.

------
jimmyvalmer
Wish bigwigs would keep it brief and to the point. This was all I need to
hear:

> official broadcasts [should] remain focused on the game and are not a >
> platform for divisive social or political views.

Same goes with NFL and the kneeling. Just say "hey, we're a business" and
leave it at that. Hate all the moralizing.

~~~
wpietri
You do realize that "our profit is more important than your people dying" is
also moralizing, right?

~~~
jimmyvalmer
You can argue Blizzard puts profits over free expression (every company does
to varying degrees). It's absurd to say the kid's obtuse outburst, if left
uncensured, saves lives.

~~~
cm2012
It's really not. If no one makes a stink about HK publically, China can get
away with awful things there. You can't be shy about calling out tyrants.

------
nmca
This new language of mind-bending corporate doublespeak deserves more parody.

------
joobus
Can’t they just admit they like money more than free speech or democracy?

------
Gonzih
I feel like this is Activision and not Blizzard talking.

~~~
lisp-missionary
I feel like this is Joshua and not Josh talking.

------
mcphage
> The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision
> we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on
> our decision.

It’s depressing how stupid he thinks we are.

------
jimueller
Swing and a miss

------
ajhurliman
"We don't want to lose money from the Chinese market, but we also don't want
to lose money from the American market, we're not really sure what to do and
have no moral guidance on the situation, will you accept this double-talk and
continue paying us?"

------
hagreet
TLDR: not an apology

------
66434throwaway
The publicity this is getting is amazing.

I wonder if protesters supporting Catalonia, Cuba, Venezuela, Kashmir, Sudan,
Indonesia, or Palestine did this, if it would get more attention than a single
article or thread?

Heck, 100 people have been killed in the current Iraq protests and there are
less articles and outrage compared to this. Maybe future protests will focus
on getting punishments from large companies? Perhaps this is the start of a
new type of activism.

------
lisp-missionary
tl;dr Our top analysts have determined that the amount of money lost by people
being upset about this is still less than the amount we would lose by losing
business with China.

