[Montyfatcat]

You guys still gonna be playing or buying Blizzard games after what they did?

[Project]

fuck em, my broke ass hasn't given them money and won't be starting any time soon.

[Da Cool Cow]

Enlighten me as to what happened

[Project]

Check around the 14:00 mark.

[Ben]

I'll be honest, I'll still probably be playing their games just not as often as I do currently. (Which is very rarely I'll admit...)

[Soviethooves]

Their censorship isn’t going to stop a lot of people from playing their games. I’ll still be playing every now and again, but I never really was active with their products anyway

[Bambo]

funny thing is the fans are gathering to make mei a symbol of the movement so china bans the game

[Soviethooves]

A large majority of their shareholders and players are under Chinese control. This isn't a new scenario and it won't be the last until developers stand up for their players instead of their pockets. Activision's Blizzard is no exception.

[Nev]

I think people need to stop associating companies with politics.

We live in a capitalistic society where profits > people and this isn't necessarily something that is always true, however, it often is. You should not isolate firms that are simply trying to ensure that they are aligned with the values of their stakeholders and intended/projected audience.

In the case of Blizzard, those against the recent events are making an argument that they should take the stand against China based on ethics and not on profits. Tencent, a Chinese firm and one of the largest holding companies, has a 5% stake in the company and significant influence on internal policies.

People are expecting a multi-national corporation to adhere to ethics based not on human-rights violations but rather that it conform to western ideas of the role government plays in business, law and with its constituents. You can't honestly expect that from a country that has a social credit system that uses FaceID systems to track those that behave negatively and penalize them for even minor instances of jaywalking or purchasing alcohol. 

If Blizzard isn't in the Asian market, they lose a significant audience both captured already (~12% of their audience is in China) and that which has been untapped as of now for various reasons, though they've shown that they're proactively trying to reach this market through re-branding their games to be approved for that audience. Activision needs the Chinese market more than the Chinese stakeholders need Activision. There is no benefit to them taking a position that is anti-CCP except pleasing a small % that will actually boycott the company.

[Bambo]

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://www.polygon.com/2019/10/9/20906405/fortnite-epic-games-tim-sweeney-political-speech-china-tencent-hong-kong Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://www.polygon.com/2019/10/9/209064...-hong-kong Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://www.polygon.com/2019/10/9/209064...-hong-kong

Tencent is approximately a 40% shareholder yet Epic Games' Tim Sweeney said Epic won't punish for such. Surely 40% is a bigger cut than 5%. This might just be Tim's way of attracting customers though idk

[Markus]

I think people need to stop associating companies with politics.

We live in a capitalistic society where profits > people and this isn't necessarily something that is always true, however, it often is. You should not isolate firms that are simply trying to ensure that they are aligned with the values of their stakeholders and intended/projected audience.

In the case of Blizzard, those against the recent events are making an argument that they should take the stand against China based on ethics and not on profits. Tencent, a Chinese firm and one of the largest holding companies, has a 5% stake in the company and significant influence on internal policies.

People are expecting a multi-national corporation to adhere to ethics based not on human-rights violations but rather that it conform to western ideas of the role government plays in business, law and with its constituents. You can't honestly expect that from a country that has a social credit system that uses FaceID systems to track those that behave negatively and penalize them for even minor instances of jaywalking or purchasing alcohol. 

If Blizzard isn't in the Asian market, they lose a significant audience both captured already (~12% of their audience is in China) and that which has been untapped as of now for various reasons, though they've shown that they're proactively trying to reach this market through re-branding their games to be approved for that audience. Activision needs the Chinese market more than the Chinese stakeholders need Activision. There is no benefit to them taking a position that is anti-CCP except pleasing a small % that will actually boycott the company.

Why should we defend a company for putting money first and human rights and the human race second?

They could've simply given the player a slap on the wrist for going against policy, but their desire to penetrate the Chinese market led to the Chinese government and an oppressive regime penetrating them.

[Daley]

I think people need to stop associating companies with politics.

We live in a capitalistic society where profits > people and this isn't necessarily something that is always true, however, it often is. You should not isolate firms that are simply trying to ensure that they are aligned with the values of their stakeholders and intended/projected audience.

In the case of Blizzard, those against the recent events are making an argument that they should take the stand against China based on ethics and not on profits. Tencent, a Chinese firm and one of the largest holding companies, has a 5% stake in the company and significant influence on internal policies.

People are expecting a multi-national corporation to adhere to ethics based not on human-rights violations but rather that it conform to western ideas of the role government plays in business, law and with its constituents. You can't honestly expect that from a country that has a social credit system that uses FaceID systems to track those that behave negatively and penalize them for even minor instances of jaywalking or purchasing alcohol. 

If Blizzard isn't in the Asian market, they lose a significant audience both captured already (~12% of their audience is in China) and that which has been untapped as of now for various reasons, though they've shown that they're proactively trying to reach this market through re-branding their games to be approved for that audience. Activision needs the Chinese market more than the Chinese stakeholders need Activision. There is no benefit to them taking a position that is anti-CCP except pleasing a small % that will actually boycott the company.

Yes, let's cut companies even more slack. I really do not get why people feel the need to defend big companies in any situation. They'll be fine. Doesn't mean they should not be criticized for what they do, especially not when their decisions influence peoples lives, push an agenda, or supports horrible shit.

Saying that for a business perspective it makes sense for them to behave this way. I get why they did it, but I cannot support it.

[Soviethooves]

Update: 

They gave the guy’s winnings back, shorten the suspension, and gave a formal explanation.