Himass and TanVuu banned from all PUBG tournaments: Why the Vietnamese PUBG community is deleting the game at once

On the evening of September 9, 2026, my phone was full of screenshots. Rambo, one of Vietnam's most veteran PUBG players, opened his game library and uninstalled the game. DJChip, former head coach of the Vietnamese national team, posted his own uninstall image right after. Around the same time, a KRAFTON Esports announcement spread at terrifying speed: Himass (Lã Phương Tiến Đạt) and TanVuu (Trần Tấn Vũ) were banned permanently from all global PUBG tournaments organized or approved by KRAFTON. Their accounts were locked, and their PUBG Partner status was revoked. In one night, a community that once produced national representatives began acting as if the game no longer belonged to them.

To understand the anger, we have to go back to the trigger. The incident started at PUBG Asia Stars 2026, a showmatch involving Korean player Soopi. Soopi accused Himass and TanVuu of stream sniping during the match, gaining knowledge of opponent positions. KRAFTON reacted with unusual speed: revoking Partner status, locking accounts, then announcing a global ban. The organization then admitted it had published its conclusion before finishing verification. The public review noted the two players did receive information through a chat box, but did not confirm they actively watched an opponent's screen. The most unusual part is the ruleset: the tournament had no clear rule against receiving chat-box information and no specific stream-sniping clause.

I have followed Asian PUBG since before national teams had stable salaries. Based on my years of watching tournaments, I have never seen a permanent global ban originate from a single showmatch. That abnormality comes from the structure of power, not from the individual players. In this case, KRAFTON is simultaneously the game publisher, tournament organizer, rule-maker, investigator, and sanctioning body. There is no third-party referee. An appeal exists, but the appeal is heard by the same body that issued the ban.

The clauses KRAFTON cited include operational policy violations, abuse, game fairness, and conduct standards. These phrases are broad enough to cover almost any behavior, yet not narrow enough for players to know the boundary in advance. When an organization uses a subjective standard to handle a technical loophole, it turns rule enforcement into punishment after the fact. The real value of this case lies not in whether Himass and TanVuu stream-sniped, but in the fact that KRAFTON punished conduct that was not explicitly prohibited at the time. For an international competition system, that defect is more serious than any single in-game mistake.

In football, there is a saying: people do not pay for a player; they pay for the name before the ball rolls. In esports, KRAFTON has just devalued the name PUBG in Vietnam. Competitive damage is already real. Rambo is leaving. DJChip is leaving. Himass and TanVuu are banned. These four people are not from the same generation, but they belong to the same value chain. Rumors of them moving to Delta Force have appeared on social media, unconfirmed, but the direction is clear. The Vietnamese national team cannot send these two players to PNC. Domestic teams lose two leading faces. Talent scouting loses veteran leadership on both player and coaching sides.

The second layer is financial. Social media is circulating rumors that five organizations - AG AL, Finhay Cerberus, The Expendables, Alpha Gaming, and TDT Esports - may withdraw from PUBG. PUBG Vietnam Series, the league seen as the talent elevator, may be canceled. I do not use the word certain: this rumor comes from a single Threads source and no organization has confirmed it. But in a small market, five named organizations appearing in one story is already a macro signal. When the stadium is empty, financial numbers begin to tell the truth; if no team shows up, sponsorship revenue disappears with them. Revoking PUBG Partner status is also a financial blow, because that status usually brings publisher support and access to league-related revenue.

The tournament system is also under pressure. PGC, PGS, and PNC are three official tiers operated by KRAFTON. The ban covers all three, meaning Vietnam loses its full national representation in the next cycle if the appeal does not succeed. Remaining teams can still play, but their lineups are visibly weaker. For a country that once produced PNC representatives, losing a slot because of a showmatch incident is a systemic loss. PUBG Vietnam Series has long been where international scouts look for Vietnamese talent. If this league is canceled, the next generation will have no stage to prove its value. The consequence will not appear immediately; it will show up after two or three seasons. Then the lack of new players will be misread as a market with no potential, when the real cause is that the foundational league was cut early.

The third layer is the national narrative. Vietnamese PUBG is turning an individual dispute into a Vietnam-Korea confrontation. Soopi is a Korean player. KRAFTON is a Korean company. The two banned players are Vietnamese. On forums, the word abandonment appears more often than the word violation. Perceived injustice travels faster than evidence. This story may leave a long scar even if KRAFTON lifts the ban. Sponsors are more sensitive to image than to legal arguments; an angry market is hard to sell to advertisers.

Delta Force is the quiet winner. A same-category title is absorbing talent and viewers from Vietnamese PUBG. If the uninstall wave spreads, viewership and sponsorship revenue will flow toward a competitor. That is a long-term threat that cannot be fixed by an apology statement. Even if Vietnam stays in PUBG, the presence of an alternative destination changes the bargaining power of every Vietnamese pro.

But I must repeat a point the outrage is ignoring. KRAFTON's review confirmed Himass and TanVuu received outside information through a chat box during the match. Even without a specific rule, receiving outside information during a match is a gray zone any professional knows. The community has the right to oppose a permanent ban, but if we discard this fact entirely, we build a story missing half the truth. The punishment may be disproportionate, but the behavior recorded in the report is not baseless.

The signal that PUBG is leaving Vietnam is also not strong enough. The in-game language list no longer displays Vietnamese, according to community screenshots. But the Vietnamese PUBG website is still active, and update 43.1 released on September 9, 2026 still keeps full Vietnamese content. One side is a red signal; the other is a green signal. If we look at each side separately, it is easy to follow emotion. If we look at both, we see a publisher hesitating, not necessarily leaving. When data is contradictory, a market does not die from a decision; it dies from prolonged uncertainty.

About the withdrawal rumors, I learned one lesson in this job: media do not report on the market; they write its price list. Today's price list for Vietnamese PUBG is being pulled down by rumors, not by official decisions. Five organizations have not issued statements. PVS has not announced cancellation. If we are not careful, we turn an unverified signal into an official verdict. I have seen esports markets collapse not because of a ban, but because stakeholders read rumors faster than they read official communications.

There is also the counter-allegation against Soopi - multiple browser windows - which has not been publicly investigated. KRAFTON handled Himass and TanVuu within days, but has yet to publish a symmetric result for the other side. That creates a perception of unfairness. In a case where the organizer has already admitted rushing, ignoring counter-allegations weakens trust in the entire process.

Crisis does not kill a market; it tests the hypotheses nobody dares to raise. The biggest hypothesis here is not whether Himass and TanVuu violated a rule. It is whether a publisher that holds both rule-making and sanctioning power can correct itself when its ban is found to have been rushed. The answer sits inside KRAFTON's appeal room. If they reduce the penalty or open a symmetric investigation, the story can shift from abandoning Vietnam to reforming the system. If not, the uninstall wave will spread, and Vietnam may become the classic example of a small region squeezed by a large publisher through a legal loophole. At that point, no additional ban is needed; PUBG will have lost Vietnam on its own.