The Blitz Con
Michael Lee
Screencap of Ng “blitzchung” Wai Chung’s Hearthstone interview.
This weekend Activision Blizzard hosted their annual convention, Blizzcon, in Anaheim, California showcasing a number of new games to hit the market in the near future while attempting to quell some of the bad press they've received of late.
It has reopened debate on the issue of politics in gaming, something that invites incredible amounts of vitriol in comments sections across the internet.
On October 6th, Ng "blitzchung" Wai Chung, a Hong Kong-based player of Blizzard's game Hearthstone, donned a gas mask for a post-game interview during the Hearthstone GrandMasters tournament and shouted "liberate Hong Kong! Revolution of our age!" before the interview cut away to commercial. For showing solidarity with those protesting against the controversial Fugitive Offenders amendment bill put forth by the Hong Kong government, blitzchung was suspended from play and stripped of all prize money earned in 2019 Hearthstone tournaments by Blizzard immediately following the broadcast. Citing a vague piece of their competition rules document, Blizzard's defense was that blitzchung violated a rule that forbids players from doing anything that "brings [them] into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages [Blizzard's] image." While blitzchung's statement does seem to fall under this rule, in that it likely did offend Chinese viewers of the broadcast, and could harm Blizzard's image in China, this seems to be the first instance of a punishment being handed down based on this rule. To say that in the thousands of hours of Hearthstone eSports footage that has been streamed, there has never been a comment made that would offend a portion of the public, or damage Blizzard's image would be nonsense. What this does say, is that the decision to suspend blitzchung (and the two unlucky commentators whose duck-and-cover tactic could not save them from the mighty ban hammer), is without doubt politically motivated.
China remains an emerging market for a number of industries, as regulations are slackened to allow foreign companies access under the watchful eye of the authoritarian regime. Hollywood has made inroads at the Chinese box office, albeit with large blockbusters scrubbed clean of any potentially objectionable content, which may include depictions of ghosts (for superstitious reasons), sexuality, or an unflattering portrayal of China or Chinese people. Such is the case with the 2012 remake of Red Dawn, where extensive re-edits changed the invading army from Chinese to North Korean in an attempt to get the film through to the Chinese market. It was rejected and never made it to screens there despite the revisions.
The degree to which films must adhere to censorship policies put forth by the Chinese government has led to a bit of a chill between Hollywood filmmakers and China. Yet, there will continue to be projects that will attempt to thread the needle and make adjustments, or as we see more frequently, studios collaborating with Chinese production companies on films to navigate the waters. Video game companies are just starting this same dance with China, learning the first steps of the censorship samba. Excessive gore and violence and scantily clad female characters are reasons cited for a game to be either banned or requiring revision. The recently established Online Ethics Review Committee is the arbiter of video games in China, determining which are suitable for the market, and can reject games if their content goes against the morals and ethics of the state. To control artistic expression in this fashion... is politics in gaming.
And much like in the world of cinema—where money has flowed out of China and into Hollywood studios, production companies, and theater chains—Chinese companies are investing in Western gaming companies, offering a non-Ukrainian quid pro quo of access to the Chinese market for a share in the company. China's biggest player in this regard is Tencent, which wholly owns Riot Games, and has large stakes in Epic Games, Ubisoft, and the folks at the center of this latest controversy, Activision Blizzard. For the inside track into the Chinese market, partnering with Tencent—makers of the massive PRC propaganda hit Clap for Xi Jinping—is a surefire way to get your games to the estimated 500 million gamers in China. Even Nintendo is getting in on the action, working with Tencent to market the Switch in China. The console made a splashy appearance at the China Digital Entertainment Expo this year alongside a rash of new Tencent titles produced in cooperation with the Communist Party of China. Gems with titles like Codename: South China Sea, Homeland Dream, and Story of my Home. These titles represent politics in gaming.
However, this isn't a phenomenon limited to authoritarian regimes trying to indoctrinate their people. If we need an example stateside, look no further than the Call of Duty franchise. The massively successful series of first-person shooters—which plunk players into combat scenarios based on (or at least inspired by) real-life conflicts—helps push forward the narrative of the perpetual state of war. The team at Infinity Ward has crafted a franchise that the US Military recommends its soldiers play during their down time to "blur their on-duty responsibilities with their off-duty, noncombat routines and lives." Washington even recruited a former writer of the series to sit on a panel of "experts" to discuss the future of modern warfare. The upfront politics of the game narratives tend to mask other ways the series pushes an agenda. The franchise licenses specific guns to be used in the game—for authenticity, of course—which means more money in the coffers of gun manufacturers which they can put into gun development and marketing, to put guns into the hands of soldiers (and civilians) alike. This franchise represents politics in gaming.
As with something like gun licensing, not all politics are written out explicitly, but have political implications.
In 2018, after months of interviews, Kotaku released an exposé on the sexist work culture at Riot Games, makers of the multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) game League of Legends. The extensive reporting detailed uneven hiring practices, emails between male employees about the female employees they would like to sleep with, and that women "were constantly talked over by men in meetings... and when they do stand up for their ideals, they can be punished." Their bro culture creates an environment where women do not feel like valued employees, and the favoritism shown to men puts women with aspirations of upward mobility at an unfair disadvantage. At play here is body politics. If we follow the thinking of feminist philosopher Liz Grosz, the female body is a site of both normalization and resistance where social norms of being female are inscribed on the body. So by being female, there are social and culture behaviors and ideologies that are inherently placed on women by hegemonic forces that have dictated what is considered "normal" female behavior. The intention for those with hegemony is to never relinquish that power by inscribing perceived weakness onto the female body and relegating it to the role of caregiver. So when women finally do assert themselves to wrest power from the hegemonic forces—ie. seek upward mobility in a company where only 2 of 23 senior leadership positions are held by women—the ugliness of the hegemon manifests itself in the language used to describe women versus men at a place like Riot.
In a culture that seems to valorize speaking out, owning your ideas, and being "passionate," women who attempt to follow these edicts receive labels like "aggressive," "emotional," or "annoying." This is politically charged language used to keep men in power, and keep women in the rank-and-file with no hope of progress. This company represents politics in gaming.
This brings us back to Blizzard and their decision to ban a player who voiced his support of pro-democracy protests. Too often, multinational corporations are treated as apolitical entities that are completely removed from the countries in which they might do business. Global capital is a race to skirt as many regulations as possible by striking up deals with nations ready to bargain—either with cheap, exploitable labor or tax shelters. And where there are untapped consumer bases, companies will do whatever is necessary to get a piece of that pie. Profits above all else. Suspending blitzchung was a necessary move for Blizzard to maintain their foothold in the Chinese market. Blizzard has meekly attempted to apologize for the suspension to assuage their Western customers' uneasiness about what this suspension means for rights to free speech, but the tone of their social media presence in China makes it clear the company stands with China.
Siding with democracy should be an easy call, but when money is involved, all bets are off. If a Hearthstone player held up a sign for Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, or abortion rights they may be met with a suspension or a fine, we don't know, there is no precedent for what kind of punishment is doled out for this kind of infraction. Certainly the response would not be as severe as what was handed down to blitzchung in October.
What makes this situation so sad is the response to articles on the topic. Comment sections light up when scandals like this break in the gaming world. In a case like this, the refrain is often "keep politics out of my video games" but so much of the gaming world, and so much of our entertainment industry, is entrenched in politics at every turn. One comment in particular stood out in this latest firestorm that, when boiled down, said "not everything should have politics in it, including and especially the pastimes people turn to when they are tired of the shitty world and need to recharge." This misses the mark completely, as the "shitty world" we live in is largely a result of massive corporations like Activision Blizzard raking in money hand over fist at the expense of the ever-shrinking middle class. Activision Blizzard's CEO, Bobby Kotick, is worth $7 billion dollars and his modus operandi is to keep share values rising and make himself even more money. To give people like Kotick a pass, and allow his company to squash democratic rights in order to cozy up to oppressive regimes, is not the angle to take here. In a world where capitalism casts a fog over an already strained political landscape, it can be hard to take a stand against an enemy you can't make out. But this is a case where there is a clear wrong take, and an equally clear opportunity to stand against morally bankrupt capitalists and authoritarianism.
Michael Lee is the Editor of KOSATEN, and is currently pursuing research on Japanese fandom, with a particular focus on doujinshi and other fan-created media.
