We now know where Blizzard’s allegiances lie. I would love to see a boycott by gamers around the world in the name of freedom but I doubt enough will be able to give up their fix to make an impact.
2 Likes
Civil discussion on a divisive topic justifies my pride in OTG membership.
2 Likes
Can’t argue with any of what you say regarding Chinese transgressions. Note, though, that in other countries, much of it is also said about the US - no government outside the Middle East really took any sincere actions, though. The US economy was too strong. People the world over depended on it. Today, China’s economy is strengthening and going global while US dominance is waning. I suspect the world will tolerate China just like they tolerated the US.
Tariffs… well… I see the headlines concerning the current tariffs… I don’t see many supporting it. Remember, no matter how much anyone tries to rationalize otherwise, ‘people’ pay those taxes. (Tariffs are taxes). As an old cynic (defined as an optimist with experience), I’ve seen how that plays out many times. People here in the US, for example, begged for and demanded taxes on corporations. They got taxes on corporations - via the tariffs they pay on Chinese goods - and now the same people are complaining about the rising costs because of the tariffs. In France, like most places, people demanded climate action. Their government tried to implement actions needed to comply with the Paris agreement - and the people started rioting in the street over the rising fuel costs. People on the whole are great and ready to unify when it is the ‘somebody should do something’ stage, when ‘somebody’ should sacrifice. But the will to act fades rapidly when they realize the ‘somebody’ turns out to be them.
I fully agree that if China ‘were’ to be honestly confronted with sincere demand they change, it would need to be the world doing it… WTO… More like UN to cover all aspects and show unified intent. But! China was also given a free pass by the world in the Paris agreement. China ‘agreed’ to keep raising pollutant levels for decades… and the world cheered like that is a good thing. They didn’t agree to do anything they weren’t already doing, but the other governments sold it as if it was wonderful (- and people bought it.) Doesn’t look to me like the governments are honestly interested in confronting China - not really. So, yea, the WTO reclassifying China’s trade status or some other firm UN action might work. But I don’t see much possibility of the world moving that direction. If they haven’t so far, they don’t really intend to.
To me, in ‘free’ societies, it is always ‘the people;’ whether it is our government or our private sector. Whatever our government is doing, ‘we’ are responsible. “We” put them there. “We” can remove them. “Governments” - “They” - are people. “Us.” Same with the private sector. Businesses exist because they make money through goods and/or services. They get that money from people. If people objected and didn’t pay, the businesses would cease to exist. People read the Washington Post. People WORSHIP everyone associated with Hollywood. People watch sports, buy the tickets, buy the goods, approve the tax incentives to build stadiums. For government OR private sector to do anything, enough people have to want it enough to make them. But, as I said, usually people ‘want’ it until ‘it’ affects them personally. They get mad they can’t have what they want, then get mad when they get it. 
I’ve seen it happen so many times. Tariffs are taxes paid by people. There would need to be enough people ready to pay enough to change the direction of China - which, as you realize, is not really ‘developing.’ It isn’t some small country with a small population and an insignificant economy/GDP. We’re talking a LOT of cost to a LOT of people for a LONG time… I don’t think people’s attention span is long enough, even if they were willing to give up anything at all.
1 Like
Activision-Blizzard, like the NBA, demonstrates strong moral flexibility when one of their revenue streams is at risk. Make no mistake. China is using its access to the US market to impose censorship and control outside of its borders. These are just the first steps, but if this authoritarian suppression of freedom is allowed to continue where will we be in 10 years? 50? I applaud anyone who stands up to this behavior, no matter the financial repercussions.
2 Likes
I think Blizzard was in their right to use this form of punishment.
I also think it was way too heavy handed based on a way too broad ‘rule’.
And as for China. China’s not our friend, and I read an op-ed article in the NYT that pretty much sums up my feelings on that.
- He did break the rules.
- He knew what he was doing.
- Somethings are more important than a silly video game competition.
- I think blizz went overboard in their punishment. Nobody should be able to “Make an example of” people by increasing punishment. All people should be treated equally.
- China should piss off and leave Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Tibet alone.
No offense intended to any of our Chinese members.
1 Like
Stock price down 4% since their Blitzchung decision and talks of Blizzard boycotts abound. Not the first time they’ve been politically naive, but maybe the worst.
2 Likes
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ~ George Washington
1 Like
So… they potentially lose revenue from boycotts because they didn’t let someone hi-jack their platform and threaten their revenue from China.
And now they potentially lose revenue from China when they get blocked because they let people hi-jack their platform …
Glad I don’t own Blizzard stock anymore. It takes a hit either way now. Feel sorry for the shareholders. Hope nobody’s 401k has Blizzard stock, either.
FYI, there’s already a lengthy (and delightfully civil discussion) about this mess going on here:
can this be merged with the other one?
No idea that that thread existed. I tend to avoid the Off Topic forum. I certainly don’t care if an admin wants to combine the threads
1 Like
I seem to only post in the off topic thread so i don’t annoy people…LOL
Its a Canadian thing, eh!
1 Like
I was under the impression his punishment was exactly what they said it would be according to their rules. That would mean people are asking for special treatment demanding it be changed to something else.
Looks like Blizzcon might be a bit interesting:
This puts Blizzard in a huge predicament. If fans are wearing any pro-Hong Kong gear, do you ban them? Do you make them leave?
What about people that speak up in panels and presentations?
This could get very interesting.
i might have to get the vurtural ticket now…LOL
1 Like
uggghhh wrong thing to say, dude.
My first post ever on the off topic forum 
Blizz is back pedalling now. Had they taken care of the incident quietly and without such draconian measures, they may have had no backlash at all. Now they are walking that proverbial tightrope between China and the rest of the world. It will be interesting to see if their membership numbers and stock price recuperate any time soon.
1 Like
So… Blizzard management is trying to walk a tightrope to avoid too much revenue loss from this…
By his actions he placed the company at risk of losing revenue from China if they did nothing to him.
Or, he placed the company at risk of losing revenue from customers if they did something to him.
This single incident may or may not affect their stock or revenue in the long term. But in the short term, a lot of people are exposed to the worry that it will be negatively affected.
I alluded to it in earlier comments, but maybe this will help clarify that the individual’s actions put at risk the investments of real people. “Shareholders” invested their money in hopes of some return on that investment. If Blizzard grows, as they hope, the stock price increases and they make some money from their money. If Blizzard doesn’t grow or produce good revenue, the stock price decreases and they lose money instead.
Okay, yes, it may have been ‘for a good cause,’ but HE decided HE knew better than others how much THEY should risk ‘for a good cause’ and gave them no choice. Not some nebulous, faceless, “Blizzard” that we have personified, but real people, their real money, their real savings, and their real hopes for retirement. HE decided THEIR money was worth it. HE decided that this venue was the best place to express himself and that no other would be more suitable.
Anyone who holds stock in Blizzard directly, anyone who owns a mutual fund with Blizzard stock and anyone who has a 401k that holds Blizzard stock or a mutual fund with Blizzard stock was involuntary volunteered to participate in his protest…
So, while it was ‘a protest’ on his part, sure, it was also an action that has financial repercussions beyond just him. He didn’t take all the risk.
He passed it out to a lot of other people too. He believe it was the appropriate time and place for his protest and a way to get attention… Obviously he succeeded. But he isn’t the only one paying for his decision.
https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?symb=ATVI&subView=institutional
Top 10 Owners of Activision Blizzard Inc
The Vanguard Group, Inc.
Capital Research & Management Co
Fidelity Management & Research Co
Capital Research & Management Co
BlackRock Fund Advisors
SSgA Funds Management, Inc.
Capital Research & Management Co
Columbia Management Investment Ad
Geode Capital Management LLC
Invesco Advisers, Inc.
Top 10 Mutual Funds Holding Activision Blizzard Inc
American Funds Growth Fund
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index
Vanguard 500 Index Fund
Fidelity Contrafund
American Balanced Fund
American Funds Fundamental Investment
American Funds AMCAP Fund
SPDR S&P 500 ETF
Washington Mutual Investors Fund
Government Pension Fund - Global
2 Likes
To quote one thing from that article:
I might be cynical, but I believe that’s a straight out lie. I can’t possibly imagine that not having factored in, especially considering all the stakes.
Did Blizzard think this through properly? I don’t think so. In wanting to avoid taking responsibility and pointing to the rules and their so called motto, it seems they’re trying to deflect a PR messup.
The bigger problem is what all the reactions show, namely that a lot of people consider this as Blizzard taking sides, despite maintaining it has nothing to do with that.
In the end, the emotional component involved in all this seems to have been completely overlooked by Blizzard, and their handling of the backlash hasn’t been much better.
Either way they were in a complete loss/loss situation, so no decision would’ve been the right one.
2 Likes