China is taking further steps to combat “gaming addiction”. They have ended all new game approvals.
Can Funcom give a response here or elsewhere on this matter? Are there plans in place in the event China, and therefor Tencent take a hard line against games like Conan Exiles?
If the CCP demands Tencent stop pursuing games like Conan Exiles. Being that their HQ is in China, can they shut down further development of Conan Exiles. Or shutter Funcom all together? (Now that they own a majority stake?)
My hope would be Tencent would simply sell it’s shares rather than squatting on them for the IP rights in the future?
Any clarity on this would be appreciated. I am genuinely curious what Funcom’s plans are on this matter.
This is not a political, troll, or debate thread. Please keep posts relevant/respectful so the thread is not shut down.
SCMP’s source added that Tencent and NetEase are being forced to purge all video games that are toxic for children, including “worshipping money” and “gay love.” The two firms were also directed not to concentrate on maximizing profit at the expense of getting minors addicted to games.
China’s reasons for this are a bit complicated and more political than actual concern for the kids.
They probably could, but I do not think it is at all likely. Tencent is going to resist the CCP’s demands as much as they can get away with, as their objectives are probably not as aligned with the CCP as the CCP would prefer.
They might keep their shares because shares are not hard currency that the CCP can siphon out of Tencent, but Tencent would want the shares to maintain value, which would require Funcom to keep making games.
I am not sure how many IPs Funcom actually owns, but the big ones like Conan and Dune are licensed, so Funcom does not own them and Tencent would not get to own them either if they did try to hoard shares.
I don’t think it is in Tencent’s interest to let anything happen to Funcom, and Tencent is big enough that it will be quite difficult for the CCP to push them around too much.
Nothing will likely happen. Funcom is a company based in Norway, not China. China can’t dictate things to Funcom. Tencent is likely using Funcom as a loophole in this manner.
Honestly, I wish governments worldwide had the power to enforce this. Marketing addictive products to children is illegal when it’s cigarettes or online poker but not when it’s RNG lootboxes?
Tell that to Hollywood. Still, I suppose you’re right in that they aren’t directly dictating things as most people who don’t pay attention to this stuff would imagine it. Also there’s been a few incidents lately where even after they bent the knee to the CCP, the CCP still blocked them.
What it really comes down to is too much greed. China is a big market with lots of money. Hollywood and game companies want in. China says you need to play by their rules to be in their market, which in principle is totally fair and I would expect the same if the parties were reversed. And when the rules basically necessitate selling your soul for lots of money, it’s not hard to guess what decision most of the big corporate execs like to make. I mean, a lot of them probably sold their soul five times over already by then, so what’s one more, right?
Anyway, that’s the concern. Not that the CCP will start dictating decisions to a Norwegian company the same way they do to a Chinese one. But that they will make up some rules for China that then get indirectly passed down to Funcom if Funcom wants to stay in the Chinese market. Funcom being owned by Tencent, a Chinese company, is basically just adding extra weight to it.
Banning anything that hurts children is a good thing, but it is highly subjective in that who decides what harms children.
Anyone posting on these forums most likely played many hours of online games as young people, yet would argue that they were not “hurt” by it.
The bottom line is the CCP looks at productivity for the good of the collective and thinks that children need to be more productive for the future of the Borg.
George Orwell would understand this concept. The state tells you what to do, when to do it, and punishes you when you do not comply.
And you think this is a good thing?
I think the best way to handle that is to let the parents decide what is best for their children. And if they screw that up and the child hurts themselves, hold the parent responsible.
We need to get out of this idea of restricting creative freedoms of adults because of what children get their hands on. I don’t like the predatory aspects of loot boxes and the detriment of what they do to video games in general like anyone else. But running to big brother government using children as a shield for an argument is NOT the way to deal with that.
Yes, you got me. I’m a Chinese spy. Congratulations, Mr Bond.
Thinking it’s ok for a democratic state to restrict people’s freedoms to protect the vulnerable doesn’t make me an Orwellian dictator. It makes me a normal adult in a democracy. Impressive straw man though.
What do you suggest instead, begging big brother mega corp not to psychologically exploit our vulnerabilities, please?
I’m not trying to sound hostile, I’m genuinely asking. What’s the incentive for these industries to self regulate? The whole problem is that people en masse can’t boycott the product because it is addictive.
Seeing as how @Firecrow specifically said they wished that the world governments would ban aiming predatory tactics (like RNG lootboxes) at kids, I think it’s a bit ungenerous to accuse them of supporting CCP’s ulterior motives, but maybe that’s just me.
Yeah, Orwell’s name gets thrown around a lot, mostly because it’s easier to point out that a country is moving closer to “1984” (like China and North Korea) than it is to realize when you’re moving closer to “Brave New World” (like the US).
I don’t like either of those, but most of the world seems to be leaning towards one of them.
Yeah, that works to a certain degree, and then it stops working altogether. It can still work for videogames, thankfully, but I wonder for how long.
It is a bit of a balancing act. But the thing that keeps corporations in check is competition. As long as there’s healthy competition, you generally don’t have to worry about them. Competition for governments usually involves a lot of people dying (or worse), so it’s generally a good idea to severely limit what happens at the government level. Thus legislation should be the last resort, not the first or even second or third.
When it comes to exploitative loot boxes, we might be getting to that point. But the fact that it’s such a hard fight is actually a good thing.
We’ll have to agree to disagree I guess because I don’t buy any of that. “Voting with your wallet” sounds fine - except we’re specifically talking about a situation where people are groomed from childhood to make the decisions big companies want them to make.
That makes a mockery of personal responsibility. Earlier you said people use protecting children as a shield for their freedom restricting arguments. “Personal responsibility is with the individual” is what exploitative companies say to shield their practices.
