Okay, I’ll play this metaphor. Let’s say “supporting” means providing humanitarian aid (since you’re definitely not providing “weapons” by giving representation)
So this humanitarian aid is saving lives in the conflict. You’re giving people food and shelter. And your argument was that Blizzard SHOULDN’T offer the aid because they’re supporting the enemy.
All those people are going to starve, get sick, and die, because heaven forbid the company be duplicious.
Should they be giving away weapons? No. But that doesn’t mean they now must stop saving lives with their humanitarian support. It’s extremely selfish to say “Stop doing a good thing because you’re not doing other good things that I want you to do!”
A good act is a good act, even if it’s being done by a bad actor.
That is another bad analagy because in this context the aid would be having LGBT representation in their games in those countries. Instead, Blizzard has ‘aid’ to all the countries that don’t need it (AUS,USA,UK) and doesn’t give aid (because their games are censored) in the countries that do (SAUDI ARABIA, SINGAPORE, CHINA). Why is aid in this context the LGBT content? Because the people that are in need the aid are the oppressed LGBT communities in those countries that Blizzard is simply ignoring. Would it be beneficial if Blizzard didn’t sell those games in those countries? YES because think about it. Lets say you’re a Singaporean gamer and looking forward to Overwatch releasing only to find out it won’t be released in your country because your government doesn’t support LGBT rights. Knowing this, you would be more inclined to possibly change your opinion and be more accepting of the LGBT community and even possibly be politically active to get it changed (So you can play your favourite Blizzard games lol). Instead, being complicit with these countries allows no change at all and the whole thing is sweapt under the rug.
Wouldn’t it bring more awareness if Blizzard just didn’t sell games in those countries because they aren’t accepting of LGBT issues? Of course it does but it doesn’t make money.
TBH, the way you constantly say ‘LGBT’ alone, like “if you’re a company that doesn’t support LGBT you lose money, look at Chic Fila” kind of sounds like you’re trolling. I’ve only ever seen trolls use that term to refer to LGBT people.
Also, the reason why Chik Fil A was boycotted by many in the LGBT community was because they were actively donating to anti-LGBT causes.
Also, I’ve talked to people from homophobic countries. Mostly what I’ve heard is that censored representation is better than no representation at all. Sure, uncensored representation is best, but representation from the closet is better than none at all. In places like China many people use VPNs, and I guarantee you that some people have encountered that uncensored information about the lore.
Finally, I am old enough to remember when the best representation young gay me could hope for in media was the villains, as US censorship at the time meant that we couldn’t have the protagonist being gay. Apparently to you, this means that we should have just not had any representation, rather than bad representation. Bad representation is bad, but no representation is generally worse.
I phrased it like that to prove a point, the point being that there is a financial incentive for companies to pretend they care about the LGBT community. Also, I don’t really know what other word you would want me to use without sounding offensive. I have friends who get offended by the word queer and I feel like other words woudn’t represent it better.
Anyway, while yes there is obviously benefits to having representation through VPNs and stuff, there is no doubt that there would be way more representation in those countries if they just didn’t sell the game there because the governments weren’t supportive of their cause. You can read my previous replies on why but basically its because people who were looking forward to the game would push their governments to pass more accepting regulation or at bare minimum think its really stupid that their country is so unaccepting of this thought process.
Yes, obviously its good to have any LGBT representation back then now times have changed, also I am not complaining about the roles these LGBT characters serve but rather the company. Its not me complaining about the character in a movie but rather the production company.
Blizzard as a company is like most others that virtue signal and don’t legitimately care about LGBT people (besides what money they have). That being said, I do think that the character writers for OW do care. Tracer and Soldier are decent representation compared to how bad it can get. And that representation is important considering how many homophobes came out of the woodwork on the forums last pride month.
I’m very late to this convo but yes I agree that’s one of the best ways they could have done it. You have all these people acting like they made a whole ad campaign saying he’s gay now. These people always say “I’m all for gay inclusion” but the second a character is made guy they say it’s virtue signaling.
Companies as a whole do not care about social & political issues. They care about the bottom line. If it is determined that virtue signaling will generate more profits they will. If not, they won’t.
Bro they added a rainbow icon, game ruined. I can’t believe they’d include a whole group. I’m going to Valorant now. (This is a joke cause I’ve been suspended for sarcasm before).
No company does, but it’s the hip trendy thing to do one month out of the year to seem like they care to keep their image positive and profits rolling.
While I doubt blizzard the company cares, I do believe the devs themself care. Aaron Keller had his rainbow blizzard pin on even when it wasn’t pride month.
While this may be true, it was not what was asked. Don’t get me wrong, I assume every corporation has at least a few people that care, but the only reason Companies make a “big deal” about it, is for publicity and image. If any company really cared, they wouldn’t wait until “pride month” to show it.
If it wasn’t, it has got to be the worst marketing strategy in modern times. Releasing a character, hiding vital information about it, and surprizing everyone later… Imagine if the OW team released a gay hero and turned around and said ‘surprize’ he/her is really a straight character! You you don’t think this is possible why not? If it can go one way why can’t it go the other?
Why does it matter? What if a young kid related to soldier as his father or some lonely man saw tracer as a wife. Maybe you are so insensitive you really don’t give a sh*t about these people, but in the end of the day it truly was the worst marketing they could do for the game.
No, anyone who says this does not pay attention to the lore lmao. Soldier was teased gay YEARS before it was revealed. He was teased gay in the first year of OW, during the FIRST Christmas event comic where Tracer was revealed gay. Everyone was shown in panels either with or reminiscing about loved ones. And Soldier’s panel was him looking at an old photo of him and Vincent, while Ana sat across from him.
Which is the EXACT scene that happened in the Bastest comic years later where he was revealed gay officially. It was planned YEARS in advance. Nothing was done last moment to virtue signal.
The fact that you don’t think characters can be revealed as LGBT without it being a marketing move or “out of nowhere” is problematic (and I HATE that word) and weird.
I believe some people at Blizzard care, definitely. Maybe even more than a few. Do I believe everyone does? Of course not. Do I believe Blizzard as an entity does? That wouldn’t even make sense.