Activision Blizzard punished a professional gamer for speaking on behalf of Hong Kong. This must be unacceptable.
Activision Blizzard, one of the largest gaming companies in the US, just succumbed to Chinese censorship in an alarming way: it suspended professional players from its digital card game Hearthstone for a statement in support of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests.
On Sunday, Hong Kong player Chung Ng Wai made offensive remarks in an official interview after winning a match in the Hearthstone Masters tournament, the game’s highest level.
Chang said “Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our time” – the slogan of the city’s protests – wearing glasses and a mask, which the protesters usually use to hide their identity. The protests that began over the extradition law have escalated into a broad demand to protect the semi-autonomous city’s democratic political system from mainland Chinese attempts to take control of it.
On Tuesday, Blizzard cracked down on Chang. In an official statement on the Hearthstone blog, the company said it would suspend Chang for a year, forcing him to forgo thousands of dollars in 2019 bonuses, and fire the commentator who conducted the interview.
Blizzard, which created World of Warcraft (among others), is a huge company. In 2018, it brought in about $7.5 billion in revenue. Like the NBA condemning the Houston Rockets general manager for a pro-Hong Kong tweet, Blizzard is not only trying to act within Chinese censorship, but is acting as its proxy.
Non-Chinese Hearthstone player base outraged by Blizzard; the game’s subreddit is filled with veteran players who have vowed to leave the game in protest. Consider me one of them.
I’ve been playing Hearthstone daily for about two years now, including spending some money on cards and reaching the top of the game’s competitive ladder (Legend rank). But now I’m done, whether it’s Hearthstone or any other Activision Blizzard product, as long as it doesn’t bring back Chang and the caster.
Blizzard’s rationale for Chang’s suspension is based on an alleged violation of the rules, specifically rule 6.1 of the Hearthstone core rules. The rule prohibits “engagement in any conduct that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, damages the public’s reputation, offends a section or group of members of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard’s image.”
The idea here seems to be that pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong have given Chiang “notoriety” in mainland China, which justifies his removal from office. The actual motive is likely to be more blunt: Blizzard’s user base is shrinking, and they’re counting on expansion in the massive Chinese market to reverse that decline.
”The gaming giant … is in desperate need of stimulus after losing a quarter of its value in the last 12 months,” financial news company AlphaStreet reported in January. “Blizzard’s strategy of taking the Chinese route to regain lost power is now being emulated by many US tech companies.”
Blizzard’s user base is still predominantly non-Chinese. The entire Asia-Pacific region accounted for less than 12% of its revenue as of June 2019, according to the company’s latest financial data. Since the region includes major gaming markets in places like Japan and South Korea, mainland China is less influential than you might think, trailing the Americas (55%) and Europe/Middle East (33%).
So while Blizzard has plenty of room to grow in the Chinese market, a major blow to its revenue in the US and other liberal democracies would be a huge threat. Blizzard fans in these countries have a lot of influence over the company.
For large companies, exploring the Chinese market is difficult and requires some compromises. Blizzard has redesigned World of Warcraft to fit Chinese cultural norms and restrictions, including removing some of the gore and skeletons. Maybe not ideal, but at least a reasonable option for a company with a clear financial interest in the Chinese market.
The censorship and confiscation of a professional player who expresses support for Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement is crossing the line.
It’s not just about tailoring the cosmetic parts of a product to a particular market, it’s about actively participating in the suppression of political speeches that represent core liberal values. Blizzard forged a connection with the authoritarian state, acting as an international agent of its repressive machine and speaking out against basic human rights.
The orchestrated boycott of Blizzard is also a relatively rare opportunity for ordinary citizens around the world to help protesters in Hong Kong in their efforts to defend democracy.
It is difficult to achieve much with brave people who take to the streets thousands of miles away, but international consumers have influence on international companies. Punishing Blizzard for her actions could help send a message to other companies that working as a Chinese government confidante comes at a cost and that they need to think twice before kicking Hong Kong off their horses.
Blizzard’s scrutiny of Zhong isn’t the only time an American company has acted on behalf of China. Just yesterday, the NBA released a statement distancing itself from Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey after he tweeted support for protesters in Hong Kong. The team is reportedly considering firing him to appease Chinese authorities and protect the NBA’s local investment.
As a result, the coalition faces political resistance from both sides. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and several Democratic presidential candidates condemned the coalition’s actions.
But Blizzard is less well-known in the US political class and hasn’t faced the same high-level political condemnation. For now, it seems like Blizzard users have an obligation to show the company that their actions have consequences.
Most news outlets make money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there’s a big problem with relying on ads and subscriptions to stay afloat. First, advertising costs change with the development of the economy. We often only know ad revenue months in advance, making it difficult to plan ahead. Secondly, we do not deal with subscriptions. Vox is committed to helping everyone understand the complex issues affecting the world, not just those who can afford a subscription. We believe this is an important part of building a more equal society. We couldn’t have done this if we had paid access. It is important that we have multiple ways to make money, just as it is important to have a diversified retirement portfolio to protect against the ups and downs of the stock market. That’s why while advertising remains our biggest source of income, we’re also looking for grants and reader support. (We have strict rules of editorial independence, no matter how our work is funded.) If you also believe that everyone should have access to reliable, high-quality information, would you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.
Post time: Jul-23-2023