Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

https://www.invenglobal.com/articles/9254/blizzard-has-removed-blitzchung-from-grandmasters-and-banned-him-from-competing-in-hearthstone-following-his-on-stream-hong-kong-protest

by wei_jok • 7 years ago

180 86 7 years ago

invenglobal.com

mister_hn• 7 years ago

That's really sad and stupid. Now magically all the tech giants are blocking the accounts of HKers.

Here you have the power and the dark side of the cloud: one click and it's game over

alpaca128• 7 years ago

"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 will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD [...]"

That's pretty close to "Blizzard can remove you from Grandmasters as soon as you open your mouth". Sad to see such a cowardice from corporations, although in the case of Blizzard it was kind of to be expected after all their visual modifications to Hearthstone in order to appeal to the chinese market.

mlang233• 7 years ago

Isn't this basically the same with all big corporations these days? If you say unpopular things on your YouTube channel, you will be demonitized.as a way of punishment. In short, either you please big brother, or you will suffer.

x2206• 7 years ago

Yes, it is. I've heard many examples of youtube channels with mildly conservative political opinions getting ranked far lower than the youtube algorithm should rank them. Since youtube isn't transparent with its creators we have to speculate for ourselves. A lot of evidence points towards censorship.

virgilp• 7 years ago

Is it a "big corporations" thing? Try saying e.g. that maybe Minsky was innocent, see how that works.

OTOH who knows anymore, maybe big corporations do have something to do with it.... it's certainly convenient. If you have money it's rather easy to summon a mob to do your bidding and silence inconvenient people, so they must love this new trend. Also if you have money and power, it's easy to get discretionary, arbitrarily-enforced rules to not apply to you. All these new trends are so much more convenient than the old "due process" thing....

hos234• 7 years ago

Big corps can't escalate things as a reaction or on a whim. They have much more to loose than a single protestor does. It has to be planned. Preferably with all other big corps in tow. Google tried and their market share went from 35% to 2%.

Now if they had got together with other corps, and drawn a line the story might have been different. That said, with each attempt comes learning and the next attempt wont go the same way.

The Chinese aren't immune to pressure (as the tariff wars show) and there are invisible lines in the sand, they can be pushed to step over that will unify opposition and escalate things.

Intelligent protest is about finding those lines.

Iv4• 7 years ago

I choose to believe that even big corporations can choose to have values.

I do believe we are entering in an age where reputation is going to be much more valuable to companies.

My ISP for 10 years is one that took some strong stances against censorship by doing things like mirroring wikileaks (back when it was cool) os supporting net neutrality.

I kinda put Google in a different basket for years because of their (initial? I think they changed?) refusal to censor search results in China.

And companies who submit to Chinese censorship, I want strictly nothing to do with.

jug• 7 years ago

Eh, it's pretty much a given that a company won't tolerate using their games as platforms for politics or propaganda. I consider this no better than annoying spam and I'm happy they did it. I don't want to see it if I'm playing their games. I didn't sign up for that, so get it out. I don't care if it's politics that I support or not.

BigJ12112• 7 years ago

Ironically refusing to speak can also mean that. If the rest of the players would refuse to speak at all (in interviews or whatever), they could still be banned for that.

ohashi• 7 years ago

NBA, Blizzard, who is next?

twno1• 7 years ago

What next? I just checked how many game companies owned by Tencent. I don't think situation will going better. Especially these are popular esport games (Fortnite, LOL, PUBG)

https://www.pcgamer.com/every-game-company-that-tencent-has-...

Ygg2• 7 years ago

You forgot Disney.

x2206• 7 years ago

The act didn't bring Blizzard into public dispute. Blizzard banning the player brings Blizzard into public disrepute because it shows that they are cowardly whores willing to do anything for money.

bilbo0s• 7 years ago

The act didn't bring Blizzard into public dispute.

Like most things these days, that depends on which "public" you're talking about.

x2206• 7 years ago

Do you have any evidence that the free HK statement itself harmed Blizzard's business?

orisho2• 7 years ago

Title is clickbaity. They did it for a political protest during an official Blizzard tournament stream, not for actions on his own stream or something.

He put on a gas mask and called for liberation of HK. I'm with him, but I definitely see why Blizzard has the rule in place, and it would not be right to overlook this - they would then have to be OK with others doing other protests. Blizzard should not pick a side.

calcifer• 7 years ago

Blizzard should not pick a side.

Not picking a side is siding with the status quo, which is Chinese oppression in Hong Kong.

orisho2• 7 years ago

Not picking a side is not allowing political discussion, no matter who you (or they) perceive to be right. Coincidentally, this is also the choice that makes most sense to a corporation which stands to lose a lot from picking a side. Players will likely respond to sensationalist reporting of this case, but forget about it soon after, while the Chinese government is not gonna go easy on Blizzard picking the other side.

vkou• 7 years ago

Which is exactly how sports leagues operate, be they FIFA, the Olympic Committee, the NFL, the NBA...

If you expect them to be the high water mark of social justice, you're going to be deeply disappointed.

(Meanwhile, various tech firms have been criticized for picking a side, or allegedly picking a side in social conflicts over the past few years... Damned if you do, damned if you don't, apparently.)

ajuc2• 7 years ago

Blizzard should not pick a side.

You cannot "not pick a side" in a situation like this. Blizzard clearly picked Chinese money over human rights.

They behave rationally as a company, but I hope they will still lose on this. The fact this is a rule changes nothing - they created that rule.

VicFrank• 7 years ago

This is the rule in question

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 will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD, in addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms.

The rule is not "political speech is not allowed" it's "don't make us look bad."

Choosing to ban this player is absolutely picking a side, and it's not with the good guys.

koonsolo3• 7 years ago

You have to ask the question as a company, to allow politics to enter your space.

Now it is supporting HK, next time it is against nazi's, next time maybe against Trump. Once you disallow one, you will "pick a side".

I'm not saying this ban was good or bad, I'm just saying it's more complex than picking side in that debate. Maybe they just don't want to get into the shit of any political debate.

But for the rest, all the support for HK. Maybe this ban brings it even more in the news.

tyfon• 7 years ago

Sometimes you just got to voice your opinion [1]

Blizzard chose money over human rights and they will have to stand for it themselves. They've already picked a side, money. Now they lost my money though.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salu...

Iv4• 7 years ago

Same here.

I wanted to believe that even despite Activision buying Blizzard, it would stay an awesome company. I should have known better.

Starcraft 1 was the first game I ever bought. I feel sad to have to boycott them now.

recoil• 7 years ago

One less launcher I have to have installed on my PC at least.

mytailorisrich5• 7 years ago

They should have an explicit rule against political displays like they have in football (I mean soccer).

That way it's clear for everyone rather than having a catch-all rule that is arbitrary and does not tell players where the line is.

NeedMoreTea4• 7 years ago

Then there would be arguments that a certain symbol or action is political. Then any hint of something that might, conceivably be a stance or salute. No patterns, pictures or logos of any kind, unless it's of our sponsors.

Like FIFA ludicrously deciding that a poppy on a Remembrance Sunday international is political. They deserved every bit of anti-FIFA vitriol the popular press and internet managed to come up with.

Iv4• 7 years ago

And what's wrong about letting whoever won a tournament have their 10 seconds of free speech to pass on a message?

Are we so afraid of free speech that we must insist on compartmentalizing subjects in that way? Just have Blizzard make a statement saying "That person's opinion is only his own, not Blizzard's" and be done with it.

And yes, that means the next one may shout about veganism or white supremacy. So what? That will benefit or hurt the people speaking, not Blizzard.

sawaruna• 7 years ago

The cost of Tencent investment funds.

cheeze• 7 years ago

Companies are spineless and will do pretty much anything for money.

We've seen it from the NBA, Blizzard, Disney, and the like. The fact of the matter is that if you want to do business in China, you have to be open to censoring things that they don't like.

anonthrowaway28• 7 years ago

South Park rules.

Rainymood2• 7 years ago

While I agree with the sentiment that is being expressed here (i.e. it's "wrong"). I can't help but think about the fact that he ... simply broke the rules. There is a clear clause in the ToS that states basically "You are working for us. If you say anything that can damage our reputation, we can cease working with you." Which, to me, makes a whole lot of sense to have as a clause.

x2206• 7 years ago

He didn't damage their reputation. Blizzard shot themselves in the foot.

Rainymood2• 7 years ago

That's like, totally your opinion. Blizzard has a huge base in China that is largely invisible to us. As a large (gaming) company you want to stay as neutral as possible, or at least that's what I imagine what large PR firms would consult Blizzard to do.

AmericanChopper• 7 years ago

I’m sure allowing this wouldn’t do much for their reputation as a company that wants to trade in China. Not everything has to be a forum for political speech, and trying to force everything into being one is just a deceptive way of trying to force your views onto others.

jxi• 7 years ago

Probably, but that's not saying much. Anything a player does could in theory damage their reputation (e.g. something ridiculous like saying you like AMD over Nvidia can damage Blizzard's reputation with Nvidia fans). I think the fact that they're choosing to exercise their ToS right in this case does speak to their values rather than it being them just "enforcing rules".

jimbob452• 7 years ago

Esports used to be entirely privately-run one-off events where authoritarianism like this wasn't possible. This new era of centralized esports hasn't really paid off for anyone but Riot and even they readily admit that their esports department loses money.

pingyong• 7 years ago

How they choose to enforce the rules is completely at Blizzard's digression though. There's giving a slap on the wrist and then there is banning the player and the casters. That sends a pretty clear message. If a player had advocated for gay rights, that would've technically still broken the rules, yet somehow I doubt Blizzard would've cared much if at all.

Dylan16807• 7 years ago

Unless someone is directly employed for social media PR, a clause that broad is not justifiable.

Iv4• 7 years ago

Blizzard has ruled that Hearthstone pro Chung "blitzchung" Ng Wai will been removed from Hearthstone Grandmasters, following the player's call for Hong Kong's freedom during a post-match interview. Additionally, Blizzard has stated that it will no longer work with the two casters who appeared in the now deleted broadcast.

https://www.pcgamer.com/blitzchung-removed-from-hearthstone-...

I am a huge starcraft 2 fan. But from now on, I'll refrain talking about it. Boycott Blizzard. They support Chinese censorship.

I am so sad. That was a company I really loved.

__s• 7 years ago

Similarly, let's not forget the MtG deck Umbrella Revolution: https://www.coolstuffinc.com/a/adriennereynolds-101714-whats...

jimbob452• 7 years ago

At this point, Blizz must be hoping that the bad publicity is better than their current no publicity. Hearthstone is the #14 title on Twitch as I type this out and prominent players have noted how much less viewership the tournaments consistently get.

Also Tencent owns a portion of Activision Blizzard. That would be my guess for who is pulling the strings behind this specific incident.

lmedinas• 7 years ago

I think Blizzard wants to make a statement and being strict about politics have no place in their games... Honestly i would be surprised if any gaming company would allow that, independent if the Player is right or wrong.

With respect to Twitch placement, since when Twitch is a benchmark for number of Players in a game worldwide ? HS lost momentum because of the greedy economy of the game and because other games surged.

Another source for the subject: https://www.kotaku.com.au/2019/10/in-post-game-interview-hea...

LordDragonfang• 7 years ago

I think Blizzard wants to make a statement and being strict about politics have no place in their games...

Meanwhile in Overwatch, they've made a point of a diverse cast and canonically made several characters gay/bi, upsetting plenty of far-conservatives. (all of which is excellent, of course) Hell, Starcraft literally features storylines about revolutionaries fighting a dictatorship.

I get that game politics are different than real-world politics, and they have to draw the line somewhere, but it's a little conspicuous where they've chosen to draw the line.

zeouter• 7 years ago

The fact they went so hard on this (and will no longer work with the two casters who tried to hide / not be associated) is part of what's particularly so insulting, and egregious.

They are implicitly making an example of this, thereby sending a political message.

Debugreality• 7 years ago

Very brave @blitzchungHS hope your message is heard.

playing_colours• 7 years ago

I am thinking about it from the angle of video games vs. real world.

Be a hero, a revolutionary, a pirate, feel encouraged to work hard, explore more, improve yourself, rebel, but only there in a safe artificial illusion, virtual world they built for you. In real life, do stay a passive compliant consumer, a source of money (or energy like in Matrix).

This chasm seems to keep widening with the progress in technologies like VR, and this way of organizing a society is very convenient for businesses and people in power. Welcome to Coward New World!

Ingenious next steps in this direction would be to seamlessly integrate our jobs into artificial reality, so that people can sustain themselves, make money for corporations and people in power - do all this staying totally immersed in the illusionary world. Get exclusive game currency, bonuses to your stats from your employer for a good work. Mmmm, I want to write a book about it :)

ngcc_hk• 7 years ago

Not a surprise. If you still do not get, prepare for a world with no freedom of speech. Starting from Cathay, nba abd this.

You have to kill Winnie the pool per South Park advice. You have to ... there is choice when you have to no freedom.

craftoman2• 7 years ago

I keep tracking Blizzard cause I play Hearthstone from time to time. This company is unethical, it doesn't even care or respect their own employees and you can see it based on their previous scandals. They are treating both designers & developers like money making machines and they ruined almost every of aspect of their games. They spend millions of dollars in tournaments and always trick their costumers into buying more and more gaming content. It's the most greedy gaming company after EA.

pinouchon• 7 years ago

They shouldn't have accepted to get bought by Activision. The only way they make good games now is by releasing old titles (sc remastered, classic, reforged)... And now this

craftoman2• 7 years ago

Yeah and the irony is that Activision was formed by Atari employees who left the company because they were treated like sh!t.

prepend• 7 years ago

I like how esports is so close to sports sports. This is the equivalent of “taking a knee” during NFL games while the national anthem is played.

What’s curious is that it now pits free speech vs China with Heartstone own Kaepernick. The NFL issue, I think, was two social groups (kneeler vs people upset by kneelers) with NFL/Nike/etc in the middle.

This new situation has a social group (players/free speeches/HK) vs a state (China) with Blizzard/etc in the middle.

It’s curious how Blizzard so quickly picked their side while NFL and Nike are still not going all in on one side (NFL didn’t ban, just no one hired player).

Blizzard bans player from Hearthstone following on-stream Hong Kong protest

Related Stories