←back to thread

Ex-World of Warcraft developer's thread about China and the gaming industry

(twitter.com)
408 points seapunk | 7 comments | 09 Oct 19 10:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.427s | source | bottom
Show context
curiousgal ◴[09 Oct 19 12:35 UTC] No.21202530[source]▶
For some reason, gamers appear to care about Hong Kong but didn't bat an eye when other gaming companies shut their servers down in Syria/Iran in order to comply with the U.S..

If a large portion of Blizzard's players hadn't been Chinese they wouldn't have reacted that way. So to me, Blizzard is the victim here, they were put in a lose-lose situation.

Regardless, I don't see how a company refusing to have its events politicized is considered so bad.

If people are so adamant about sticking it to China, they should boycott their actual products instead.

replies(3): >>21202601 #>>21202608 #>>21202627 #
1. jaimex2 ◴[09 Oct 19 12:44 UTC] No.21202601[source]▶
Because China dictating what can and can't be done affects them, the Syria/Iran embargo didn't.

I dont think Blizzard are in a lose position at all, they've already made a ton of money. Worst that will happen is the gravy train is a little thinner.

replies(1): >>21202793 #
2. cjslep ◴[09 Oct 19 13:09 UTC] No.21202793[source]▶
That's why, following the very-broken "vote with your wallet" mentality, I'm asking for a buyer's remorse refund for everything I've ever bought. SC1, brood war, Diablo 2, SC2, Diablo 3.

I don't expect to succeed but it'll be one voice in a chrous, and some $ in some internal "potential lost money" metric an MBA is frantically trying to compute.

replies(1): >>21203552 #
3. donpott ◴[09 Oct 19 14:25 UTC] No.21203552[source]▶
I'm genuinely curious: Why do you think the "vote with your wallet" mentality is broken?
replies(2): >>21204259 #>>21204378 #
4. cjslep ◴[09 Oct 19 15:43 UTC] No.21204259{3}[source]▶
A system where power is dictated by a set period of every X years where, for one day, everyone biological person is issued exactly 1 unit of "voting currency" that is equal in value to the 1 unit of "voting currency" every time period before to determine that power shift; is not comparable to a system where biological people and non-biological constructs are continuously exchanging "voting currency" which itself has fluctuating value and can be accumulated such that a "later vote" is often unequal to an "earlier vote" which can lead to highly unequal power concentrated where there is high "voting currency" concentration, and there is never a set time where power is designed to shift.

It's a long winded way of saying "I don't believe the analogy holds up to scrutiny".

replies(1): >>21204983 #
5. dfxm12 ◴[09 Oct 19 15:54 UTC] No.21204378{3}[source]▶
In this case: China will always have more money than NBA Fans or gamers.
replies(1): >>21204919 #
6. donpott ◴[09 Oct 19 16:42 UTC] No.21204919{4}[source]▶
Very good point, I had failed to make the connection.
7. donpott ◴[09 Oct 19 16:46 UTC] No.21204983{4}[source]▶
Very good point. On the other hand, I'm a somewhat passionate proponent of the mentality because it provides more frequent feedback loops and to me it seems to effect more actionable change in some situations. But you're right, I hadn't thought before that it's inherently much more flawed (read: unfair) than formal voting systems.