Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BlizzCon 2019 Protest “Full-Steam Ahead,” Say Organizers

gamespot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 194 posts

Re: BlizzCon 2019 Protest “Full-Steam Ahead,” Say Organizers

#161

Post by dmix »

minimaxir wrote: post #53
entropea wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blizzard is at real risk of losing this community they've fostered for the last 20+ years I'm reminded of that image of people in a Call of Duty boycott on Steam, playing Call of Duty. Blizzard will lose some money over the next couple of weeks, but aren't at a real risk of anything. https://kotaku.com/what-modern-warfare-2-boycotters-are-play...

That Call of Duty meme has long since been discredited. https://www.resetera.com/threads/so-you-posted-the-boycott-m...

Without seeing the other 17 pages this isn't really discredit it either... they were just as likely to look the same as not.

Slacktivism is a very predictable phenomenon today. I'm seeing plenty of examples of it in both the Blizzard threads today.

Re: BlizzCon 2019 Protest “Full-Steam Ahead,” Say Organizers

#163

Post by dmix »

rosybox wrote: post #160

My 11 year old daughter has been looking forward to her first BlizzCon all year. She has been saving her allowance money so she can buy some d.va gear. She's been planning her cosplay, she's working with her mom to sew a d.va dress together based on a skin she likes. Everyday I walk her to school she's telling me her next Overwatch plan. I understand the protests, I'm angry myself at Blizzard's actions, but I'm not a…

Not everyone has to be a political activist, especially an 11yr old. Life is short and full of competing priorities, I doubt it will get much worse because a father and his daughter didn't protest.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Hopefully no one harasses those who still decide to go or causes any violence. That never helps anyone.

Re: BlizzCon 2019 Protest “Full-Steam Ahead,” Say Organizers

#164

Post by ulkesh »

rosybox wrote: post #160

My 11 year old daughter has been looking forward to her first BlizzCon all year. She has been saving her allowance money so she can buy some d.va gear. She's been planning her cosplay, she's working with her mom to sew a d.va dress together based on a skin she likes. Everyday I walk her to school she's telling me her next Overwatch plan. I understand the protests, I'm angry myself at Blizzard's actions, but I'm not a…

You are a good parent. Thank you. She doesn't deserve to lose out because Blizzard decided that their financial interests in China are more important than ethics and morality. I hope you both have fun there!

Re: BlizzCon 2019 Protest “Full-Steam Ahead,” Say Organizers

#165

Post by filoleg »

russh wrote: post #157
filoleg wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most pharmacies in the US sell beer/wine. I don't think that is the case for hard liquor, though.

RiteAid sells hard liquor in Washington state.

I guess it makes sense it would be legal in states where the sale of hard liquor is allowed in places outside of dedicated liquor stores (and WA is one of them), I've just never really noticed it (never been to RiteAid in WA, though, only to Bartells/CVS/Walgreens). Thanks for the correction.

Re: BlizzCon 2019 Protest “Full-Steam Ahead,” Say Organizers

#166

Post by ALittleLight »

CivBase wrote: post #111
ekianjo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We encourage players and community members to express themselves. However, our tournament coverage is a platform for Blizzard e-sports content only. Any future use of the platform to express personal political opinions on sensitive subject matter without Blizzard's express conscent will be met with punative action." How about let people say what they want and let the public judge by themselves? Is that so hard to…

I don't know about you, but I don't want every entertainment platform to be consumed by political discussion. Sometimes you just want an escape and that's something video games help provide. Those discussions are worth having but there are already plenty of platforms available to have them on.

The part I find especially frustrating is the double speak. Why do they say "We encourage players and community members to express themselves" while punishing someone for expressing himself? Just be honest. "We discouraged players expressing opinions that make it harder for us to sell in other markets." That has the benefit of being honest, plus everyone knows it's the truth anyway.

Re: BlizzCon 2019 Protest “Full-Steam Ahead,” Say Organizers

#167

Post by birdyrooster »

mdorazio wrote: post #69
CivBase wrote: post #50

IMO, Blizzards actions have been borderline incompetent. I completely understand them not wanting their platform to be used to make political statements. This isn't like the NBA situation where Morey used a private social media account to show support for his private political opiniona. This was a platform owned by Blizzard with a very specific content focus. But banning Blitzchung for any amount of time was just dum…

I think it still would have been met with backlash because Blizzard previously hopped on the sociopolitical issue bandwagon when they thought it would win them public points [1]. A lot of people see the current situation as transparent bullshit because Blizzard obviously wants to have its cake and eat it, too. [1] https://www.gameskinny.com/as926/blizzard-entertainment-says...

Not to diminish your point, but to add an additional possibility, I imagine the pro LGBT stance may have been singular or small groups of employees inside Blizzard sounding off inside a corporation with different values.

Re: BlizzCon 2019 Protest “Full-Steam Ahead,” Say Organizers

#168

Post by birdyrooster »

hugey010 wrote: post #129
erulabs wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CVS stopped selling cigarettes and lost $2B revenue per year. After a few years, their stock is up. Is that seeking profit or doing what's right? Why does public good and public profit always have to be opposed? If being "woke" is profitable, we shouldn't discourage the good just because of potential profits. That would be like boycotting the Prius because Toyota is trying to make money off environmental concerns...

There are a few decent case studies around this move, and I still find it fascinating. They can say they did it for their values, but immediate revenue loss for values doesn't happen all that often. If it were truly for values, I'd expect alcohol to be removed from shelves as well. In the early 2000's, CVS started treating patients at their MinuteClinics in the pharmacy. It became directly comparable to an actual doc…

Is ending the sale of tobacco really that similar as ending the sale of alcohol in terms of values? What shared values do you see in ending the sale of both of these products?

Re: BlizzCon 2019 Protest “Full-Steam Ahead,” Say Organizers

#169

Post by s1artibartfast »

hugey010 wrote: post #129
erulabs wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CVS stopped selling cigarettes and lost $2B revenue per year. After a few years, their stock is up. Is that seeking profit or doing what's right? Why does public good and public profit always have to be opposed? If being "woke" is profitable, we shouldn't discourage the good just because of potential profits. That would be like boycotting the Prius because Toyota is trying to make money off environmental concerns...

There are a few decent case studies around this move, and I still find it fascinating. They can say they did it for their values, but immediate revenue loss for values doesn't happen all that often. If it were truly for values, I'd expect alcohol to be removed from shelves as well. In the early 2000's, CVS started treating patients at their MinuteClinics in the pharmacy. It became directly comparable to an actual doc…

>If it were truly for values, I'd expect alcohol to be removed from shelves as well.

Not sure why everything has to be black and white. An individual or corporation can hold values that are against smoking but ok with alcohol.

Picking one and not the other does not invalidate the value.

>Anecdotally, and ironically, most of the people that are aware CVS made this move are inconvenienced smokers. I'd expect a huge continued marketing campaign around this endeavor in the US, but it hasn't been as strong as many other less impressive campaigns.

This is not surprising or ironic if the action was based more on ethics and less on PR/ virtue signaling.

Re: BlizzCon 2019 Protest “Full-Steam Ahead,” Say Organizers

#170

Post by lolinder »

chipperyman573 wrote: post #136
erulabs wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CVS stopped selling cigarettes and lost $2B revenue per year. After a few years, their stock is up. Is that seeking profit or doing what's right? Why does public good and public profit always have to be opposed? If being "woke" is profitable, we shouldn't discourage the good just because of potential profits. That would be like boycotting the Prius because Toyota is trying to make money off environmental concerns...

Wait, how did CSV help anything? People aren't going to stop buying cigarettes. They're addictive. People will just start paying double from a gas station.

If we all waited until we could universally eliminate an unethical behavior before we stopped participating in it ourselves, the behavior would never die.

CVS has chosen to stop contributing to a problem, and the behavior of other businesses has no bearing on whether they did the right thing.

Post reply on HN