The restrictions are on people who are playing the game(and showing it off prior to release).

The restrictions are showing that the company selling the game is kinda shitty.

We cannot say for certain but it’s possible that someone(s) in the first group, the customers, is trying to disrupt the sales for a game from a shitty company.

The people who care about and released the restrictions and the people who would be affected by the attack are the same people. The attack isn’t about in-game themes because if it was they simply wouldn’t launch the game.

To add some context to the other replies you’ve gotten, the restrictions were on streamers and reviewers who would be playing the game, not sure if it was an agreement for prerelease access or not though.

I also don’t know if the DDoS was related, but I think the issue was a Chinese developer trying to force non-Chinese streamers to avoid talking about topics embarrassing to or prohibited by the Chinese government.

The restrictions might not connect to any actual game content, but by even bringing it up the developers created the connection.

What gives is right, but for the developers. They managed to Streisand effect their shit, but over something that didn’t even exist in the game in the first place.

I don’t know if this has anything to do with the ddos. It’s just the controversy I came across before the release. It might be connected, but it also might not.

Really? I’m pretty sure they never allowed owning another human beings unlike some other counties.

Which is so shicking after such a great leap forward. /s

• United Nations: Helping 800 Million People Escape Poverty Was Greatest Such Effort in History, Says Secretary-General, on Seventieth Anniversary of China’s Founding
• The Economist: At 54, China’s average retirement age is too low
• Reuters: China overtakes U.S. for healthy lifespan: WHO data