Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alexandertnt]

How much of the public is actually "so butthurt" by this game?

[SharpKris]

How much of the public is actually "so butthurt" by this game?

well excluding the forumites i've seen their greenlit page lit by comment on how "terrible" the idea of the game is and why it shouldn't be on steam

[thegoatgod_pan]

How much of the public is actually "so butthurt" by this game?

well excluding the forumites i've seen their greenlit page lit by comment on how "terrible" the idea of the game is and why it shouldn't be on steam

It is not about the public. The public knows nothing about these issues. Is is strictly between gamers.

Frankly it is not even about Hatred the game. It is obviously irrelevant after postal etc, it only matters because the shrieking reactionary mob around gamersgate decided to take it up as a cause celebre. 

In truth, is the culture wars. Gamers discovered they too fall into left and right camps that are fundamentally irrecocilable

[pisskop]

:/

I would say that left-right are irreconcilable because they represent two points on the same spectrum.

To enspouse both is literally trying to have the same number  = 7 and 9.

[Virtz]

It is not about the public. The public knows nothing about these issues. Is is strictly between gamers.

Frankly it is not even about Hatred the game. It is obviously irrelevant after postal etc, it only matters because the shrieking reactionary mob around gamersgate decided to take it up as a cause celebre. 

In truth, is the culture wars. Gamers discovered they too fall into left and right camps that are fundamentally irrecocilable

Wait, what? Nobody would have heard of it had gaming websites not gotten butthurt/click-baity over the trailer like Postal 1 never happened. And nobody would have remembered it now had someone not gotten upset enough to report it and get it taken down for a reason other than quality control. How did gamergate cause any of this?

I think we're seeing more controversy over this than Postal 1 back in the day, so I don't see the "obviously irrelevant" part either. EDIT: Ok, I just read up Postal 1 was banned in 13 countries, so I guess that wins the controversy prize.

[GobbieMarauder]

It is obviously irrelevant after postal etc

I would gamble money that, if you asked the whole of the gaming community on their opinion of Postal, the vast majority of responses would be "What's Postal?"

Spoiler: Spoilered for off-topic (click to show/hide)

Don't mention Ford or Disney though... they

The accusations of Disney's antisemitism were grossly exaggerated by his competitors, and the story just stuck.

[TripJack]

hatred is now greenlit

r00fles

[Rolan7]

Okay now they just have to release ASAP before everyone forgets.  Or maybe add swastikas right before launch to reinvigorate the """controversy"""

[Borisoff]

-snip-

Where did you get that neo-fascist shit from ? Seriously, give me some source.

[symonthewise]

...are people here seriously making the free-speech/not-free-speech argument? I thought you guys were better than this.


But, since I'm obligated: This has nothing to do with free speech. Valve isn't a government institution- they can do whatever the fuck they want. Their decisions to add games or remove them from their service is completely arbitrary- there's no point telling the person who wrote the guidelines for how they will run their service that they're violating their own guidelines when they can just re-write the damn thing if people get that pissy over it.

A free speech argument is reasonable. Just as valve can say arbitrarily "we do not agree with this product morally" so too can someone say "I don't agree with a marketplace who acts as a moral censor, I would rather be presented with the product and make my own decisions as though I were a free thinking adult." following this reasoning, one could say they are "disgusted by a marketplace who has the hubris to think it can act as a moral censor, that it would condescend to its consumer by presuming to know what is best for them" you can see how one might see this as an insult, and how they could easily see valve as the enemy.

Both are reasonable conclusions to come to when you are dealing with something that has no clear truth value (morality). In actuality valve has the power, but we live in a culture where the masses can subvert power with whining so who knows anymore.

[Rolan7]

That's an argument for neutral distributors, not free speech.  Still, a valid argument.

[symonthewise]

That's an argument for neutral distributors, not free speech.  Still, a valid argument.

The judgement of a distributer is related directly to an argument for free speech. For someone who holds that value, in an environment where independant organizations control distribution, to have a distributer censor on moral grounds is a violation of that value.

[Rolan7]

Steam technically isn't censoring and has no power to restrict free speech.  This is despite them having a huge impact on whether a title is financially successful.  It's just that "free speech" and "censorship" aren't the right terms.  If a government banned or restricted the distribution of the game, those would be the terms to use.

I think Steam is taking the right choice by being a neutral distributor regarding the issue of video game violence.  When they took the game down, they were condoning every other violent game they sell (like Postal 1, for example).  By putting Hatred back up, they're no longer making a judgement about violence.  They're just providing a neutral service, like most ISPs, which is a safe play.

If it turns out to be a mechanically crappy game like Air Control, they might take it down on those grounds...  I honestly don't know the chances of that though.  And they might continue selling it anyway just to make money off the controversy, if the outcry isn't too directed at them.

[alexandertnt]

I would consider it de-facto censorship if by banning the game from Steam, the game becomes unaccessable to people.

However, Steam is not the only distributor of games, and the game would be available elsewhere with just a quick google search. If Steam were to ban this "speech", it would still be *very* much "audiable", and completely legally so.

So I cannot consider this an issue of censorship and freedom of speech. No speech is censored of Steam refuse to sell the game.

[Virtz]

censor
/ˈsɛnsə/
noun
1.
a person authorized to examine publications, theatrical presentations, films, letters, etc, in order to suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc
2.
any person who controls or suppresses the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds

If a company, having a near-monopoly in the realm of digital distribution, is not suppressing something by disallowing it to be present on their service for reasons other than quality, then I dunno what it'd have to do.

Censorship does not have to be law-enforced, even if that is the most common association. It can be societal, such as in the form of a taboo, where those breaking the rules of what's considered proper to speak of are ostracized by society (which is something already happening here due to this touching upon the subject of murder for no good reason). And when someone bleeps out vulgar language in their youtube video, is that not (self-)censorship as well? It's not crossing the law, nor even the guidelines of youtube, it's just someone's personal view of what's morally acceptable.

Just because governments are the most effective at enforcing their moral standards through laws doesn't mean there aren't other, less efficient methods at work.

Also, you usually can't prevent something from being created through censorship. A censor acts on what's already been created, usually the final product, else they'd be psychic police.