You can't say there is no visible pressure on Blizzard while mentioning the NBA in the same breath. China's aggressive move on the NBA is the pressure. It's an example to every company that operates in China: toe the party line, or face local obstruction like the NBA.

"If they could do that to NBA, what would they do to me?"

Activision Blizzard is not a company that would be bankrupted by the loss of the Chinese market; they chose on their own merely for a potential future in that market.

That they chose to toe the party line on their own, without prompting from the Chinese government, with swift and overwhelming penalties on the player and shoutcasters doesn't exactly speak well for Blizzard.

That's still "visible pressure". Not sure why it needs to be an extinction level threat for you to recognize it as overt Chinese pressure.

If I demonstrate to you that I'm going to shoot your legs if you don't tell me I'm pretty by doing so to people around you, and then I walk up to you and you tell me I'm pretty, would it be accurate to say you chose to tell me I'm pretty all on your own, totally unprompted? Can I say that you chose on your own merely for a potential future in walking? Hey, you won't be killed by the loss of your legs.

You have literally no idea what might be being communicated in private between China and Blizzard. How can you make such a claim in good faith?

By qualifying my statement with the word "visible", and presenting an almost identical case where there was visible feedback from China.

Why would China treat the (comparatively huge and influential) NBA one way, and (comparatively tiny) Blizzard another?

That's because Blizzard did the "right" thing in the government's view. Just because the influence isn't visible doesn't mean it's not there, and invisible influence may be even more pernicious.

That doesn't diminish that it was purely Blizzard's decision in the end. Blizzard had a choice, and they picked censoring Blitzchung on their own.

So if the U.S. makes a law that fines companies for criticizing the president, and then Blizzard fires an employee for criticizing the president to avoid the fine, it's Blizzard's decision in the end and everything's fine? I don't know if you have considered the implications of this logic.

It's possible Blizzard is only surviving if they have access to Chinese market? We don't know their financials, management might be just prudent from their point of view in order to survive (people are way more obsessed with gaming in Eastern Asia than anywhere else and those regions have largest population). The management is certainly fully aware of the whole sh*tshow and likely aren't happy with whatever choice they have.

Their statements to shareholders put the Chinese market at 10% of their total revenue. ATVI is posting billions of dollars in profits, and has a profit margin of 25%+.

Activision Blizzard is in no risk of going bankrupt even if they lose the entire Chinese market.

Good, then voting with one's valet should be a good strategy to bring them back to their senses, unless they are 100% into some Chinese-friendly business ideology. Blizzard is off my list, I might re-evaulate in 1 year.

Funny that no one is talking about voting with their wallet by not buying Chinese products.

Some people are. But since this article is explicitly about Blizzard, people are focusing on their actions with Blizzard.

Can you point to some recentish posts where is there is such discussion?