Vietnam-Korea PUBG drama escalates: Soopi threatens to quit, demands publisher apology, Vietnamese streamers mass delete game

A PUBG match has up to 100 players. In Battle Royale mode, pinpointing a specific squad among hundreds of opponents is a life-or-death advantage. And that is the heart of the scandal rocking the Vietnamese and Korean esports communities: stream-sniping accusations against two Vietnamese players, Himass and TanVuu, made by female streamer Soopi – an official Krafton partner. The situation escalated to the point where Soopi announced she would leave PUBG, demanded the publisher apologize to her, while a wave of Vietnamese streamers simultaneously declared they would delete the game in protest. The story began with a friendly tournament of a "fun" nature, sponsored by Krafton, possibly PUBG Asia Stars. According to the players, watching an opponent's stream during the match was allowed within the framework of this tournament. Himass and TanVuu claimed they had asked the organizers for permission beforehand. However, after intense community backlash, the organizers decided to remove these two players from the tournament. This "following public opinion" decision set a dangerous precedent: when community pressure can alter the outcome of a competition without clear written rules. Soopi, as an official Krafton partner, posted numerous videos and articles continuously about the incident. She claimed she was bullied on Instagram, received countless abusive messages, and was even deepfaked. She also revealed she was dealing with health issues after surgery, having to turn off her camera while streaming. The mental pressure on Soopi is real. She requested to be removed from Krafton's partner list, and threatened to quit PUBG if the publisher did not issue an apology. Notably, Soopi herself admitted she had some faults and needed to apologize to the publisher and fans. This contradictory stance – admitting fault while demanding an apology – complicates the situation further. On the Vietnamese players' side, Himass and TanVuu were removed from the tournament, and according to related articles, Himass later had to leave the event. They are represented by an official management company, while Soopi operates as an individual streamer. This institutional asymmetry – one side has management, the other is a lone individual – may be why Soopi felt overwhelmed. She stated that the players' side did not contact her directly but only worked through the management company, making her feel disrespected. From a governance perspective, this is a clear failure. The tournament was promoted as "friendly, fun," yet it had real competitive consequences. There were no specific rules about watching opponent streams in this tournament. The organizers acted based on community sentiment rather than established rules. This violates the principle of fairness in esports. When a publisher partner (Soopi) competes alongside non-partner players, and the organizer (linked to the publisher) removes those players after community backlash, even if unintentional, it creates a perception of favoritism. I have followed many PUBG tournaments and other esports events. What I have observed is that stream-sniping rules are usually very clearly defined in professional tournaments. But in friendly tournaments, where entertainment is prioritized, rules are often left vague. This vagueness created a legal gap, and when conflict arose, no one knew what to base a ruling on. The organizers chose the simplest path: removing the accused to appease the majority. But that is not a sustainable way to solve problems. Another little-discussed aspect is the nature of PUBG as a Battle Royale game. Unlike MOBA or competitive FPS games, where you only care about a small number of opponents, PUBG has up to 100 players. Watching a specific opponent's stream can reveal the entire squad's position, creating a huge advantage. That is why this behavior is considered serious cheating in professional tournaments. However, in a friendly tournament, where according to the players it was allowed, watching streams is no longer cheating but an accepted behavior. The question is: did the organizers have clear rules about this? If so, why not publish them? If not, why punish? The incident has been blown up into a national battle between Vietnam and Korea. Articles and social media posts call it the "Vietnam-Korea drama." This is dangerous because it turns a rules dispute into an ethnic confrontation. Meanwhile, both sides have suffered losses. Himass and TanVuu lost competitive opportunities and may have their reputations affected in the Vietnamese PUBG community. Soopi lost some sponsors – according to her, several brands withdrew contracts after the drama broke out. She also faces severe mental pressure and the risk of losing her Krafton partner status. Both sides lost in a war that could have been avoided with clear rules and a fair process. It is worth noting that the "delete game" wave in the Vietnamese community has no independent data confirming its actual scale. Social media posts and comments can create the illusion of a massive movement, but there is no evidence of how many users actually deleted PUBG. This is a wake-up call: we should not equate social media noise with real commercial damage. The source article itself issued this warning. So what is the solution? Krafton, as the publisher, needs to speak up. They are the only party with enough authority to clarify the rules and issue a final ruling. If they admit ambiguity in the regulations, they should announce it and apologize for the inconvenience. If they believe the players' actions were violations, they need to provide specific evidence and rules. They also need to reconsider allowing their partners to compete alongside regular players, as this creates a conflict of interest. On the community side, personal attacks, especially using deepfakes and abusive messages, are unacceptable. They do not help solve the problem but only hurt those involved further. From an esports observer's perspective, I believe this incident will continue unless there is an official voice. It reflects a gap in how publisher-partnered friendly tournaments are organized. It also shows the power of the online community in shaping public opinion, but it is a double-edged sword that can be exploited to apply unfair pressure. Ultimately, it is a lesson on the importance of transparency in rules and dispute resolution processes in esports. When stream-sniping becomes the center of attention, an entire tournament is just a side map of a battle for honor. Losing trust, the Vietnamese community loses its morale buff — PUBG becomes an offline game. Defending against community pressure is never cowardly, it is just that the majority has not read the meta of silence. A friendly tournament is the biggest balance patch of the year; teams that do not read it carefully will nerf themselves. When all eyes are on a match, sometimes we forget that behind every account is a human being. Soopi endured insults and deepfakes. Himass and TanVuu lost competitive opportunities. Both sides are victims of a system lacking clear rules. It is time for Krafton to act, not just to extinguish the drama, but to build a fairer platform for everyone.