@ikcizokm: I mostly agree. I think Blizzard was too heavy-handed in its punishment, specifically with regards to rescinding Chung's prize money. But once they walked that back, I was fine with their actions.

Chung utilized someone else's platform and put Blizzard's reputation at risk to make a personal, political statement. I happen to agree with that statement, but I don't agree with making it on someone else's platform. If you're going to do that, you're unwittingly associating the platform holder with that opinion. It's why documentary series have a forewarning that the views expressed within are not necessarily those of the publisher. It's completely fair for Blizzard to try to protect its reputation by reprimanding those who misuse their platform.

But I think most people don't understand this concept. All they see is "Blizzard loves China and hates democracy!", their vision goes red, and they're out for blood. Doesn't help when politicians with political aspirations jump on board in pursuit of improving their own brand.

Now...I'd be concerned for anyone who DOESN'T agree with Chung's statement. But that doesn't mean he was in the right to do what he did at Blizzard's expense.

@silverphoenix711: I was with you up until you said "all I see is hate". If all you see is hate then it's because you choose to. While there absolutely is hate -- your example of harassment on social media being exactly that -- there are a plethora of legitimate complaints as well.

Obviously I know views on America and views on a movie are different. But the tactic is the same. "If you don't like it, leave. If you don't like it, watch something else." It's a lazy debate tactic that absolves the person of having to consider criticism. It's on the same level as labeling people. If you label someone as a "hater" or a "sexist", for example, it scores you points without you ever having to counter their arguments. Unfortunately, our society has evolved in such a way that these scummy tactics are often used to "justify" one's positions.

@silverphoenix711: Your argument is if people are critical, they can't be Star Wars fans? I've seen that logic applied elsewhere, too. Some people say that if you're unhappy with how something is done in America, you should move somewhere else.

I don't subscribe to this logic.

@elric3000: I actually find what went wrong with GoT has a lot of parallels with what went wrong with TLJ. Non-sensical writing, plot points for the sake of plot points without properly setting them up, characters acting out of character, ill-handling of beloved characters, illogical scenes, etc.

So you're waiting for it to be something it's not? I mean, that's fine, but I wouldn't hold your breath!

Good stuff! Never played a Persona game until I picked up P5. Liked it so much I bought a Vita just to play P4G.

Exactly what I wanted to hear. I'm tired of large, empty-feeling games. They did a decent job with The Witcher 3, but I'd still prefer a tighter, more densely packed game.

"...the game still has a "bright future" under current leadership."

Why even bother with saying that? Or was he referencing the fact that his poor leadership is partially why Anthem ended up flopping and that it's better off without him?

@astrokidwell: The world is not black and white. Addiction is a scale. The psychology behind lootboxes is more despicable than pay-to-win microtransactions, and so on. Video game addiction is less frequent and less severe than gambling addiction. I agree that social media has become addiction-based, and is actually in a bad place right now.

But the rat race has less to do with addiction, and more with envy, but that's not what I'm talking about anyway. I don't care if Timmy is able to buy a new Tracer pose, and Charlie isn't. I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with lootboxes, or pay-to-win.