51–60 of 115 posts
this whole thing is political bullshit. dumbass idiot consumers (citizen is a dirty word didn't you know?) in the west being used as pawns. so long as they have no brains and don't look inwards, they won't be punished.
Is that the same company that recently was in the news due to brutal workloads and work hours?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they've done a very shitty thing.
Could you elaborate? I've seen a lot of arguments along those lines, but none were willing to actually explain what it is exactly they're doing that is wrong.
When I saw Epic was jumping into the fray I figured there'd be vicious backlash and handwringing from the community for minor things and wasn't surprised at all.
Why have the League of Legends announcers stopped saying the words "Hong Kong" in phrases such as the team "Honk Kong Attitude", and instead only say HKA? Does Tencent control the broadcast/streaming?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for correcting me. I see my mistake now. Tencent controls 40% of Epic. Tencent controls 100% of Riot/League of Legends. Epic has no control over Riot/League of Legends.
Tencent controls 100% of Riot/League of Legends As Matt Levine observes, an American company can simply ignore its foreign owner if necessary https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-01/citgo-...
Number one, the US has basically declared economic war on Venezuela. The government is preventing anyone from coming to the US to do anything to control Citgo. Notice that the Citgo situation still depended on them declaring bankruptcy and then some mix of legal and political maneuvering to get a new board installed. But Citgo is a huge important energy company, not a video game company, and our relationship with Venezuela is much worse than our relationship with China. Despite the trade war and tough talk I can't imagine that LoL is the hill that the Trump admin would use to escalate things. Matt Levine's point is that the people who control the company are the ones with the keys to the office and if you have the political will you can use law enforcement to give control to the people that you want. But from the perspective of Venezuela/China, it's tantamount to the US seizing control of a foreign corporation and would be a huge escalation.
Number two, Citgo does not care about ongoing access to Venezuela (plus due to sanctions it's not like they have an economic relationship with Venezuela at the moment anyway). Their customers are not in Venezuela, their customers are in America. And they don't need to source oil from Venezuela, oil is a global commodity. Finally, there is a chance of leadership change in Venezuela. So you have scenario one, Maduro keeps control of Venezuela and nothing changes for Citgo (Venezuela now hates them but it doesn't matter because that relationship was already severed) but now Citgo is officially independent. Or scenario two, Guaido gets control and Citgo is embraced by the new leadership that they supported from the beginning.
For Riot, things are totally different. They currently have access to the Chinese market and don't want to lose that access. Sure, maybe they could convince a judge to let them appoint an American board and remove Chinese control, but if that were to happen China would just sever access to the Chinese market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they've done a very shitty thing.
Could you elaborate? I've seen a lot of arguments along those lines, but none were willing to actually explain what it is exactly they're doing that is wrong.
That's not such a big deal though, the real problem is that they did this with games that were in development for years with Kickstarter-style backing that had up until that point explicitly targeted other storefronts. To many this seems like a betrayal by the developer and Epic's behavior is making the market worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that is true, they are at least on the record now with a position and I do feel like that is important. I would hope to see other game companies make these statements as well.
If EPIC backtracks on something their CEO said, it wouldn’t be the first time. Tim Sweeney consistently makes a fool of himself and his statements turn out to be completely false pretty often. I wouldn’t take anything he says either seriously or as an actual position of the company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you elaborate? I've seen a lot of arguments along those lines, but none were willing to actually explain what it is exactly they're doing that is wrong.
For some reason Valve seems to have a lot of very rabid fans on Reddit, from many many years. Valve gets a free pass for showing annoying ads on every Steam update while being a paid service and also for their forced 30% cut and essentially being a monopoly. All the while barely improving the product for years while making billions from the cash cow. When I saw Epic was jumping into the fray I figured there'd be vici…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They will fire the CEO.
With what shareholder majority?
There are technically ways you can make certain seats on the board have a larger weight in voting, but I don't know Epic's specifics and am going to assume it's pretty standard.