Overwatch 2 - Story PvE mode CANCELLED

The problem is how much the few people doing it benefit off the backs of the people who think what they did was wrong.

Also the company as a whole still benefits from the Chinese investment, which is intrinsically linked to the issue.

Knoyleo wrote:

Fade wrote:https://i.imgur.com/jZi40Af.png

I think some people forget that probably only 1 or 2 people in the company were responsible for causing the huge backlash.

I always find it weird when people talk about Companies like they're a singular person.

Because companies still act as singular entities. Even if 90% of Blizzard employees think Blitzchung should be able to compete in tournaments, it's not like he's then able to compete in 90% of them. He's banned from them all, so long as the person making that decision still thinks he should be, and that persons bosses don't see fit to take action over it. There's no nuance to the actions of a company that reflects the fact that the people inside it might have a wide range of opinions.

Talking about Blizzard, a company, is very different from talking about Blizzard employees, lots of individual people.

They don't though, the above image is a perfect example.

Also, I understand people's grievances with this whole thing, but if he had been banned for showing a pro Russia message would people be as up in arms?

These kind of rules are in place to stop their gaming streams from becoming too political.

Fade wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Fade wrote:https://i.imgur.com/jZi40Af.png

I think some people forget that probably only 1 or 2 people in the company were responsible for causing the huge backlash.

I always find it weird when people talk about Companies like they're a singular person.

Because companies still act as singular entities. Even if 90% of Blizzard employees think Blitzchung should be able to compete in tournaments, it's not like he's then able to compete in 90% of them. He's banned from them all, so long as the person making that decision still thinks he should be, and that persons bosses don't see fit to take action over it. There's no nuance to the actions of a company that reflects the fact that the people inside it might have a wide range of opinions.

Talking about Blizzard, a company, is very different from talking about Blizzard employees, lots of individual people.

They don't though, the above image is a perfect example.

It's the opposite. Tell me how Jeff Kaplan's statement amounts to an act? How has it affected Blizzard's decision? In real terms? What, in effect, has it changed?

Nothing. At all. It's the opinion of one person who works for them but the corporate response, its actions, remain unchanged.

Fade wrote:Also, I understand people's grievances with this whole thing, but if he had been banned for showing a pro Russia message would people be as up in arms?

Nigel Farage is an arsehole, but what if he wasn't? Would people still throw milkshakes at him?

Tafdolphin wrote:

Fade wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Fade wrote:https://i.imgur.com/jZi40Af.png

I think some people forget that probably only 1 or 2 people in the company were responsible for causing the huge backlash.

I always find it weird when people talk about Companies like they're a singular person.

Because companies still act as singular entities. Even if 90% of Blizzard employees think Blitzchung should be able to compete in tournaments, it's not like he's then able to compete in 90% of them. He's banned from them all, so long as the person making that decision still thinks he should be, and that persons bosses don't see fit to take action over it. There's no nuance to the actions of a company that reflects the fact that the people inside it might have a wide range of opinions.

Talking about Blizzard, a company, is very different from talking about Blizzard employees, lots of individual people.

They don't though, the above image is a perfect example.

It's the opposite. Tell me how Jeff Kaplan's statement amounts to an act? How has it affected Blizzard's decision? In real terms? What, in effect, has it changed?

Nothing. At all. It's the opinion of one person who works for them but the corporate response, its actions, remain unchanged.

Fade wrote:Also, I understand people's grievances with this whole thing, but if he had been banned for showing a pro Russia message would people be as up in arms?

Nigel Farage is an arsehole, but what if he wasn't? Would people still throw milkshakes at him?

But my point is that "Blizzard's" decision is being made by one or two higher ups.

Think of all the dumb stuff the US has done under Donald Trump's leadership. When he does that stuff we blame him, not his party or "America". Yet when it's convenient people seem to not bother finding out who was actually responsible and instead just talk about the company as a whole.

Again that sort of direct comparison is meaningless given the multitude of organisational differences between the two types of entity you're referring to.

Companies are run for profit. That's the deciding factor. Those one or two at the top are sometimes the face of decisions they believe will make their company the most money. But they do not exist alone, plotting in seclusion in their ivory towers. They exist in consultation with many other representatives from both their own company and other stakeholders in their ecosystem. They are beholden to the web of interests that expect a return on investment. To act as if the CEO of every corporation is a dictator in the same vein as villainous world leaders is a vast over-simplification and, I think, a fundamental misunderstanding of how corporations function.

Fade wrote:Think of all the dumb stuff the US has done under Donald Trump's leadership. When he does that stuff we blame him, not his party or "America".

I don't think this is even really true. When the US state (i.e. America as a country) does something bad I do tend to think "the US state is bad". Trump has made the problems and abuses of the US state worse (in some cases much worse), but certainly hasn't single-handedly created those issues.

I think what is more reasonable to say is "we blame the US state as a system, not every single individual American that participates in it". And that's reasonable, and it fits with how people are approaching thsi situation, as I don't think anyone blames every single employee of a company that does something bad either.

Beta starts 26th April.

strawberry float Blizzard even harder than when this thread was originally started!

First Beta starts later today. Can get guaranteed access by linking your Blizzard account to Twitch and "watching" any selected streams tomorrow (18:00 til 02:00) for four hours.

https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/overwat ... 2-pvp-beta

I didn't realize this is a free update for anyone who owns the original game. Pretty cool.

I tried the game again and hated it (incredibly spammy, very little control over the outcome of the match) but maybe thebping system and reduced team size will fix that in 2. May as well try it

twitter.com/PlayOverwatch/status/1519477448152342529

8th highest in Twitch history. Good old Twitch drops.

Yeah, telling people they have to watch 4 hours of streams as the only way to get into the beta will get people to watch. Who would have thunk it.

twitter.com/PlayOverwatch/status/1537489293241118722

twitter.com/PlayOverwatch/status/1537495651654811650

F2p yaaas

No PvE at launch?

twitter.com/wcgamingtweets/status/1540033800448647171

Basically making it impossible for people to say they prefer the old one by continuing to play it instead of the new one.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/overw ... 0-6507528/

If they’re switching off Overwatch, they should at least make the new battle pass free to people who paid for the first game.

It’s the dawn of a new era.

#Overwatch2 launches October 4!

Prepare yourselves for a one-of-a-kind, action-packed, free-to-play experience with new maps, new modes, and new heroes.