IIRC, this wasn't new regulations, it was an announcement of proposed new regulations, which was then tempered after the initial backlash with a "we're reading your comments and will take them into consideration" statement. I'm going to assume that they fired him for causing the stock plunge, unless they push through the regulations anyway, in which case it's because they needed a scapegoat.

Either way, sucks to be him. Imagine getting fired because a bunch of investors panicked when you proposed doing the only sane thing to regulate psychologists manipulating people.

Should have promoted him so he could finish the job

Those bigshots think they're above turning kids on to gambling.

China wipes out ~~$80 billion in~~ video game ~~stock value~~ following their new anti-man~~ipulation~~ regulations

"value"

VG Execs after Xi single handedly 360 no scope saves gaming

idk, it's reuters and idk if there china reporting has any relation to reality.

Stopping approval of any new games for eight months, is that all games? Certain categories of games? Sounds like it couldn't be that simple or the entire inudstry would crash.

Second of all, what’s the read on firing this guy? Did he just fuck up the messaging or are they refusing to double down on the regulations?

My take was that it's uncertain at the moment. It could be a walk back or it could be them being mad at how it was handled. I'm genuinely hopeful that they might still follow through with measures though, particularly because they haven't actually said anything about a walk back.

Time will tell.

My copium take is that there's no way that the government wouldn't understand banning """player retention mechanics""" would cause a big divestment. They're used because they make shittons of reliable money! Did they think it was just because devs are too lazy to come up with actual games? That seems like a pretty basic idea that would come across with even cursory investigation into what's being regulated. Under this hopeful line of thought, it'd probably be a firing for messaging failure rather than a lack of will to follow through.

Not my problem

Gotta pump those numbers up

Tbh I see this as a delicate way of getting someone to step down while pushing through legislation that's direly needed. He probably got caught in an anti-corruption sweep.