[ndury]

These studio's should not stop publishing their games in China. The issue lies that these studio's happily comply with whatever restrictions a govt is willing to oblige due to possibly playerbase loss. Think lootboxes, forbidden skins in regions, exc... exc..

Companies as big as Blizzard should be prepared to lose 5/10/15% of their playerbase to defend free speech, the thing is they do not care about free speech. All these companies care about is revenue.

[wbl]

Lootboxes are one thing. But I doubt an aircraft simulator with a Taiwan Straits scenario would be massively published, or a Wolfenstein set in a Xinjiang reeducation camp.

Would Amazon stop selling 1984 if China asked it to? Hopefully not.

[luckylion]

Amazon will not only stop stelling 1984, they will even remote-wipe 1984 from their customer's devices, all you need is a copyright claim.

Jokes aside, I believe they would if China was a large enough market for them. They are complying with local laws, and often that means pulling a product world wide, because they don't want to go through the trouble of making sure it's only unavailable in the US. Since Amazon has never managed to gain traction in China, they likely don't care too much about China's wishes.

[netule]

This exact scenario actually happened in 2009: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18am...

Irony of ironies.

[wbl]

I think GP knew that.

[mypalmike]

Companies either abide by the laws of the countries they operate in or they risk being shut down. Most countries have appeal processes for these kinds of things, but just neglecting to follow a legal order is not something that works for multinationals.

Edit: a word

[jinnbama]

Blind defense of this narrow and immature notion of free speech from Blizzard would have people up on stage shouting racial slurs.

Rather, I think a consistent and humane stance on ethics and human rights abuses would help and address the real issue here.

They have the right to deny people access to their services and nothing they do is essential, but they do and will very obviously grab a lot of negative attention when they cut someone off for supporting the liberation of a group that's being brutalized by a major world power's corrupt police force.

[ndury]

> Blind defense of this narrow and immature notion of free speech from Blizzard would have people up on stage shouting racial slurs.

What narrow and immature notion of free speech? What the player said or what I have said?

Of course a consistent and humane stance on ethics and human right abuses would address the real issue. I do not believe for one second that its own employee's believe in the stance Blizzard has taken. Will some not care? Of course, it is their right to not care.

Is it feasible to think Blizzard has done risk analysis on the outcome of these events depending on which stance they've taken? What would they lose by taking a negative stance on the matter (which they have done)? They've currently created a situation where players of their games, whom aren't even located anywhere close to China have decided to step down from any blizzard game. What would they gain by taking a positive stance on the matter? Say the Chinese were to cut them off entirely, revenue loss of 25-30, perhaps 35%?

I understand the decision from a management perspective, I truely do. I do not understand the decision from a neutral, humane perspective. Blizzard entertainment does not have roots in China Blizzard entertainment's main focus is entertainment, fictional entertainment. Can u imagine a game, based on a pseudo-reality where free speech is non-existent? I for one can't..

I'm not sure where I'm going with my reply, I just wanted to write out these few sentences.

[knodi123]

> the thing is they do not care about free speech. All these companies care about is revenue.

Nature of a publicly traded company in a nation that deifies capitalism. Blizzard is on the S&P 500, for pete's sake.

If the CEO prioritized something other than profits, he'd be replaced by the board for breaching his obligations to the shareholders.

[xtian]

This isn't actually true. Look up the legal definition of fiduciary duties for US corporations.

[pgcj_poster]

I think the person you're replying to was just saying that the CEO would probably be replaced if they prioritized something other than profits, not that it was legally mandated.

[Aarostotle]

This one is tricky. I always thought they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, so they have to tread that line as well.

Does anyone know how that fits into the picture?

[dmix]

American companies have American customers, investors, and employees too. And European, Canadian, Aussie, etc.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/nba-china-hong-k...

Corporations have a strong incentive not to piss off the rest of the world to serve one country. They've been able to get away with it for a while but the demands from China will naturally keep growing and growing (as all censorship does once you give in to it).

The eagerness of companies to completely abandon free speech and differing opinions will eventually have real consequences.

[munk-a]

There is no such thing as an American company, if you're an American and you start a business and build it up then decide to retire and sell it off, it isn't guaranteed (and is actually rather unlikely) that all the production and business will stay in the US. People are American - not corporations.

[jimclegg]

Thanks to the tremendous criminality and wealth concentration of the last 200 years, western corps generally only answered to western wealthy audiences. The game has changed, that's all....

[mikestew]

Does anyone know how that fits into the picture?

Well, at least you left out the "legally required" part. The board most certainly has a responsibility to shareholders. It can be a long and tiring argument, but from my POV there is only "responsibility" not "fiduciary responsibility". Now, most of the time the shareholders want more money. But AFAICT, there is not a law on the books that says that the board must maximize profits above all else. For instance, and perhaps it's a poor example, but Costco says they will make 15% profit. That's it. You want more money, sell more stuff. Doesn't the board have a "fiduciary responsibility" to bump that to 16% if they can get away with it? Apparently not.

[rblatz]

That is a commonly overstated and misunderstood term.