Blizzard's Face Plant Creates Marketing Opportunity For Companies With A Spine
from the one-man's-bumble-is-another-man's-boon dept
Blizzard's decision to pander to the Chinese government is a PR headache that simply isn't going away. Last week, games giant Blizzard stepped in a minefield when it severely punished a Hearthstone player for supporting the protests in Hong Kong during a championship live stream. The reaction was swift, justified, and severe, with everyone from gamers to Blizzard employees accusing the company of prioritizing profits over principles.
After days of silence, Blizzard ultimately issued a statement on the decision and, while public backlash forced it to retreat from some of the player's more severe punishments, the company doubled down on its decision to censor players for political opinions, ignoring most of the criticisms leveled by human rights organizations like Access Now. It also tried to claim with a straight face that its financial interests in China played no role in the decision:
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.
Sure, Jan. While the gamer violated tournament rules by injecting political opinion, Blizzard's over-reaction (the gamer lost all awards and prizes and faced a one year ban from competition) showcased a company absolutely terrified of losing out on Chinese cash. It could have adhered to its rules by applying a more modest punishment. Instead it behaved in a way that made it clear to everybody that Blizzard's principles like Every Voice Matters--etched at the base of a statue at the company's headquarters--couldn't hold a candle to the potential money to be made in China.
But one company's disastrous face plant is another company's marketing opportunity. Fortnite developer Epic Games utilized the PR fracas to proclaim that it would not censor gamers simply for having political opinions, insisting companies can walk (embrace fundamental human rights) and chew gum (make a living selling games and game stream ads) at the same time:
Fortnite developer Epic Games said in a statement that it will not ban players or content creators for political speech. The message comes after Blizzard caught fire this week for banning a professional Hearthstone player for shouting a statement associated with Hong Kong protesters.
“Epic supports everyone’s right to express their views on politics and human rights. We wouldn’t ban or punish a Fortnite player or content creator for speaking on these topics,” an Epic Games spokesperson told The Verge.
That statement came despite the fact that Chinese tech giant Tencent has held had a 40 percent stake in Epic since 2011. In contrast, Riot Games, developer of League of Legends, is now 100 percent owned by Tencent. On Friday it effectively sided with Blizzard, proclaiming that broadcasters should "refrain" from discussing "sensitive topics" during game streams. Because, you know, god forbid some kid playing a game express something akin to empathy, while an authoritarian government threatens to "crush the bodies and shatter the bones of Hong Kong residents":
"As a general rule, we want to keep our broadcasts focused on the game, the sport, and the players,” John Needham, the global head of League of Legends e-sports said in a statement. “We serve fans from many different countries and cultures, and we believe this opportunity comes with a responsibility to keep personal views on sensitives issues (political, religious, or otherwise) separate."
Upsetting China's authoritarian government means potentially losing billions for companies dreaming of international expansion, so, more often than not, cutesy purported principles like "every voice matters" are going to hold up like tissue paper in a thunderstorm. Still, there's a marketing opportunity here for companies interested in showing how having a spine and respecting basic human rights isn't inherently "bad for business." Either way, with protests planned for Blizzard's BlizzCon convention early next month, this was an unforced error that's not going away anytime soon.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: china, free speech, hong kong, video games
Companies: blizzard, epic games, riot games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Words are cheap. Actions less so
“Epic supports everyone’s right to express their views on politics and human rights. We wouldn’t ban or punish a Fortnite player or content creator for speaking on these topics,” an Epic Games spokesperson told The Verge.
If they actually uphold that position when(because let's be honest, they might as well have begged someone to test it with that statement) it comes up that would certainly improve my impression of the company, but given past actions('We are pro-indie dev!'/'Indies that don't sign exclusivity deals aren't welcome on our platform') I'm not exactly putting high odds of them sticking to their guns there.
Still though, as has been pointed out before when even Epic is slamming you you know you seriously screwed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Epic is still a rather polarizing company (as well it should be) and nothing it does in response to the Blizzard shitstorm — ShitBlizzard? — will undo everything it did to earn criticism and scorn and a bad reputation. But when Epic can credibly hand Blizzard its ass on a silver platter adorned with American flags, I can’t help but laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Words are cheap. Actions less so
Depends on your perspective. Remember that Blizzard is partially owned by Tencent... the same company that Apple is using for Chinese domain vetting, and a company with close ties to CCP movers and shakers.
Epic Games is also partially owned by Tencent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Words are cheap. Actions less so
5% and 40% for Blizzard and Epic respectively I believe, but what matters ultimately is what the higher-ups decide to do in a situation like this if the amount of the company owned isn't enough to issue demands, and while Blizzard's execs have made crystal clear that they will bend over backwards to appease china the CEO of Epic(Tim Sweeny I think?) has at least said that he values free speech more than appeasing a bunch of thin-skinned tyrants.
Tim Sweeny however has said many things in the past, some of them aging rather poorly, leaving the question of whether he will follow through with that statement still up in the air until it's actually put to the test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
General sentiment with regards to Epic is that they have never been in a position where showing their integrity on the topic matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quoting Jim Sterling again:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's only a matter of time before someone in China/Chinese declares that they identify closely with being a Tracer/Soldier: 76 main due to their sexuality, and calls for more attention to be placed on China for their lack of inclusivity.
That's going to be some shitstorm Blizzard will have to navigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Statement or action as I recall, and "divisive" is anything that offends one person, without regard to reasonability. If an opponent is unhappy you shot them when they were respawning, you could be banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then again, spawncamping is peak BMing I'm sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And just exactly where do you draw the line?
That would be shunning all trade with Communist China, the same regime that murdered at least 70 million people, and which is today killing prisoners on demand to sell their organs. The West should NEVER have traded with China. -- You kids just ignore fundamentals! It's simply not within your ability to advocate ZERO trade with China. You put out stoopy little pieces like this only to position yourselves as moral and promoting human rights, but you're not.
Pffft! Show three examples on scale of Blizzard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And just exactly where do you draw the line?
Corporations and capitalism are SOLELY concerned with money and power. You kids tacitly claim to be socialist / humanist, but never attack corporations except as here, only criticizing this as a public relations gaffe! You are corporatists.
Yet to be proven that any corporation acts as a moral "person" too. They are legal fictions. You are not only supporting fictions but going on to justify them by asserting they'll implement your humanism -- and thereby prosper. That's simply not common sense, let alone provable by any example.
Also, you kids have been telling me for years that -- largely through CDA Section 230 -- corporations are to and do have total arbitrary control of message on "platforms" and can enforce EULA too. By your prior assertions this is Blizzard's Section 230 "right" and a clear violation of EULA. -- YET when serves purpose, Techdirt flatly contradicts itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's Blizzard's right to "moderate" as they see fit. On the other hand, Section 230 doesn't protect Blizzard from other people disagreeing and calling it stupid for their China-sucking behavior.
But nah, why have a nuanced discussion on the issue, when you can bitch about Techdirt supporting a corporation on an article where Techdirt literally criticizes a corporation.
Nice try, blue, but you lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Blue still refuses to talk about how he hates corporate censorship but loves it when corporations use copyright to censor speech. If we could convert cognitive dissonance into electrical energy, Blue’s could probably power a small town for a month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's funny how his arguments always fall apart once you wipe his spittle off your screen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He never wanted a nuanced discussion. His only goal is to be spiteful, facts be damned.
In other news, harboring anger and negative emotions shorten your lifespan. You hear that blue? The time you spend shit-posting here shortens your lifespan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The time you spend shit-posting here shortens your lifespan.
In that case, what we need to do now is encourage more of it and let nature take its course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Smoothbrains hallucinating that they've found some kind of hypocrisy here is quite amusing, in a sad kind of way. Like watching a puppy with a cup on its head fall off the couch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law allows Blizzard to suspend Blitzchung. The law also allows everyone else to call Blizzard out for its ridiculous behavior. The two concepts aren’t mutually exclusive.
And pointing out that corporations have rights like Blizzard’s right to suspend Blitzchung is not kissing their asses (or whatever you think we’re doing when we say that). Your ignorance, be it feigned or real, will not find comfort here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, but taking away a prize is questionable. They're advertising that the winner of a contest will get a prize, and then the fine print says they can avoid paying it for any reason whatsoever (because there's no way to win a contest without offending somebody, and anyway, Blizzard has sole judgment re: offense). It's an unconscionable and possibly fraudulent contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And just exactly where do you draw the line?
We draw the line at you blatantly lying about never darkening our doopstep with your shadow ever again bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Blizzard's principles like Every Voice Matters" .. to a black hole. THAT's how much we want to hear from you.
Why don't you just play our game and give us money? Or better yet, just give us money. You can go protest on your OWN time, but be sure and send up that check first. Bad things happen out there occasionally -- not that we'd know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reaching peak capitalism here where an American company is just bending over backwards for an authoritative communist state since they want those sweet sweet Pooh-Bucks.
Although Epic Games message is a bit... over the top. While I'm sure they'd be fine with a quick "hey here's my quick mostly non offensive (to anyone other than government entities) stance on a thing!" I doubt they'd want to be a platform for some Jordan Peterson circle-jerker just pontificating for an hour about how veganism is communism because it rhymes and that's why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We might agree that Epic has the right to kick that asshole off — and that we dislike the asshole’s message. But if Epic Games does something to kick that circlejerker off an Epic-owned platform, we’ll call out that hypocrisy, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree it's hypocrisy because of their over the top statement saying they support all sorts of free speech, speech all you like!
I can see announcing support for a movement or a political figure would be usually a fine thing to say you are in support of.
The problem is not all "political speech" is so sterile and mostly harmless to a large entity that exists to make money. Ok that dude likes Hilary I'm not going to kick him off for that. OKAY that dude during our streamed game tournament is going on about how we should all dress up like wizards and kill black people. Banning this dude.
Yes, this person is calling out for violence directly but there are plenty of dog whistle ways to say the same thing and pretend you had only the best intentions while saying it.
My main contention is... Epic is dumb and blatantly so here. They are just jumping on some outrage bandwagon real quick to get people to like them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference between those two examples is easy to spot: Only one of those statements is calling for (arguably politically motivated) violence.
If two separate streamers say on-stream that they’re voting for two different candidates (e.g., “I’m voting for Trump” vs. “I’m voting for Bernie”), you can write that off as benign. If one of those streamers then says something that can be construed as a call to violence (dogwhistled or not), that cannot be similarly written off — no matter which streamer said it.
Epic could easily allow for a wide berth of political speech while also banning “harmful” or hateful speech. It can also distance itself from any such speech by saying the opinions expressed by streamers don’t represent the views of Epic as a company or any of its individual employees. And that still gives it room to punish any speech that crosses the line into advocacy for hatred and violence — on both “sides” of the political aisle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hong Kong Protest
So are the headlines about a Hong Kong Protest, or are they asking - Is Hong Kong Pro Test? I mean if you say "Hong Kong, Pro-test?", then just maybe they're keen on exams in part of Hong Kong. At least the Hong Kong Pro-test part of Hong Kong.
And will they be keeping giant apes off the buildings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blue Balls is funnier by accident than you will ever be on purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hong Kong Protest
And will they be keeping giant apes off the buildings?
The giant apes are trademarked characters and their depiction is subject to copyright. All rights reserved.
See you in court, buster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manage Your Vanilla Visa Gift Card Online Gift Card Balance
Having access to the information of your gift card is something very important. This is why there is a need to have on the ground an easy route through which you get any information that you may have need of on your gift card. These Onevanilla Gift Cards are for everyone. Manage Your Vanilla Visa Gift Card Online. https://www.checkvanillabalanceonline.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any company banned in China for their stance on freedom and democracy is a company I want to give my money to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to check walmart gift card balance online
Thank you for this wonderful information looking forward for more. We are providing the best quality online assignment help. There are professional experts from various esteemed universities in almost every field. Well if you get time you must read more
https://www.checkwalmartgiftcardbalance.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]