The one thing I disagree with the norm on in that list, is the investment from Tencent. Unless that investment bought them some sort of influence in the decision making process, which I admit it may have, it doesn’t actually mean much beyond “omg China.”
Tencent wants to make money, they are going to invest in potential money making endeavors. It would be silly for anyone to turn away investment unless it comes with strings attached.
It’s 40% which is sizeable enough to likely be able to have influence.
Also, the fact that tencent has to go through the CCP for approval, which means that anything problematic to the government. If anyone recalls what happened between Blizzard and NetEase, basically China’s version of WoW has been put on hiatus indefinitely. It happens with movies annually.
Given that the CCP has attempted, and often times succeeded, to push their impositions on media coming from other countries. It’s not that far fetched to have some concerns about the insanely deep tendrils of Tencents reach, especially given how studios often write with censors in mind. - note that I don’t agree with the entirety of the discussion I linked, but I do think it has some interesting points regarding the process and lasting effects. For someone to be blacklisted for having a relationship (within reason of course) is wrong and moreover, inhibits the entirety of the creative process for anyone who wants to be involved in it. In the case of the article, Richard Gere was effectively blacklisted for being the wrong kind of Buddhist. Not to mention the litany of erasures the CCP would love to have swept under the rug.
Tencent wants to make money, they are going to invest in potential money making endeavors. It would be silly for anyone to turn away investment unless it comes with strings attached.
Capitalists feel the same way, but the string attached is giving up your creative will for market reach. Is the loss of profits from that market worth undercutting your creative work? Well, if you want it to do well in China then you will, but that requires the CCP’s approval…
I think that’s the important difference in regards to Tencents involvement with Epic. It’s not just that Epic is buying out games and making them exclusive, which just happens to be the exact same tactic Tencent uses with Hollywood with China’s market share, but that being the very path that’s used to stifle creativity under the proper image the CCP wants to present.
Epic made this deal with all of this knowledge, and frankly I would be extremely surprised if 40% didn’t net Tencent influence. I’d be even more surprised if that were even an option on the offer.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not faulting Epic for making money (although I guess officially they aren’t…) because even Valve releases a version of Steam with its games for China. I’m faulting them for being more complicit than most with how they’ve dealt with the whole situation. That in addition to the actually insane takes that Tim Sweeny holds, I just can’t see Tencents involvement as a little issue mostly nothing. It seems pretty clear that Epic is trying to get younger gamers on its platform, and rather than serve features and innovation they push exclusivity and incite arguments against competition.
Tl;Dr They do (invest), it does (allow influence), and it will (come with strings attached)
The one thing I disagree with the norm on in that list, is the investment from Tencent. Unless that investment bought them some sort of influence in the decision making process, which I admit it may have, it doesn’t actually mean much beyond “omg China.”
Tencent wants to make money, they are going to invest in potential money making endeavors. It would be silly for anyone to turn away investment unless it comes with strings attached.
It’s 40% which is sizeable enough to likely be able to have influence.
Also, the fact that tencent has to go through the CCP for approval, which means that anything problematic to the government. If anyone recalls what happened between Blizzard and NetEase, basically China’s version of WoW has been put on hiatus indefinitely. It happens with movies annually.
Given that the CCP has attempted, and often times succeeded, to push their impositions on media coming from other countries. It’s not that far fetched to have some concerns about the insanely deep tendrils of Tencents reach, especially given how studios often write with censors in mind. - note that I don’t agree with the entirety of the discussion I linked, but I do think it has some interesting points regarding the process and lasting effects. For someone to be blacklisted for having a relationship (within reason of course) is wrong and moreover, inhibits the entirety of the creative process for anyone who wants to be involved in it. In the case of the article, Richard Gere was effectively blacklisted for being the wrong kind of Buddhist. Not to mention the litany of erasures the CCP would love to have swept under the rug.
Capitalists feel the same way, but the string attached is giving up your creative will for market reach. Is the loss of profits from that market worth undercutting your creative work? Well, if you want it to do well in China then you will, but that requires the CCP’s approval…
I think that’s the important difference in regards to Tencents involvement with Epic. It’s not just that Epic is buying out games and making them exclusive, which just happens to be the exact same tactic Tencent uses with Hollywood with China’s market share, but that being the very path that’s used to stifle creativity under the proper image the CCP wants to present.
Epic made this deal with all of this knowledge, and frankly I would be extremely surprised if 40% didn’t net Tencent influence. I’d be even more surprised if that were even an option on the offer.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not faulting Epic for making money (although I guess officially they aren’t…) because even Valve releases a version of Steam with its games for China. I’m faulting them for being more complicit than most with how they’ve dealt with the whole situation. That in addition to the actually insane takes that Tim Sweeny holds, I just can’t see Tencents involvement as a little issue mostly nothing. It seems pretty clear that Epic is trying to get younger gamers on its platform, and rather than serve features and innovation they push exclusivity and incite arguments against competition.
Tl;Dr They do (invest), it does (allow influence), and it will (come with strings attached)