Print

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

[alexandertnt]

Hmm, good point, I suppose it could be considered censorship, although I doubt that Steam has a "near-monopoly". All the information I could find suggests a ~50% market share, not exactly what I could call a "near-monopoly". Under such a definition, I would say that Value is "censoring" stram.

So I suppose I should just state then that I have no inherent problem with censorship, and that I consider the argument that it shouldn't be banned because it is censorship be on its own not very convincing.

[Virtz]

Hmm, good point, I suppose it could be considered censorship, although I doubt that Steam has a "near-monopoly". All the information I could find suggests a ~50% market share, not exactly what I could call a "near-monopoly". Under such a definition, I would say that Value is "censoring" stram.

So I suppose I should just state then that I have no inherent problem with censorship, and that I consider the argument that it shouldn't be banned because it is censorship be on its own not very convincing.

I've heard of something more along the lines of 75% of the PC digitial distribution market, which would coincide with my experience. Like that's where most of my games are, and all the others I use either out of necessity (Origin and uPlay), or because of the occasional deal. Some people I know even use Steam just to chat with friends, cause Skype's become too much of a hassle for them.

And fair enough if you think it's fine. I don't think it's good to put this as an example of what's not acceptable on Steam when it's essentially been blind to most qualities of the things that got there. There's things that have raised scandals due to their quality, being likened to scams, that are still there regardless (such as War Z, or whatever it's called now). And there's things such as Postal 1 already there that are just as controversial. Saying Hatred is something that crosses lines those other products didn't is showing Valve has an odd set of priorities.

"This unplayable trash someone's charging money for is fine, but this game is just too violent."

[Nick K]

-snip-

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

Just from following the links on the SA article
http://www.somethingawful.com/video-game-article/hatred-extreme-banned/

Obviously that's satire, but they link to serious sites like this one:
http://fucknovideogames.tumblr.com/post/100204212288/hatred-is-a-genocide-simulator-developed-by

In fact, i think I linked this stuff in my first post on this thread:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=144827.msg5889283#msg5889283

[Henny]

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

Your atrociously written book was denied publication from a sane publisher? De facto censorship!

[SealyStar]

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

Your atrociously written book was denied publication from a sane publisher? De facto censorship!

This comparison really falls through, though, because while there are many different book publishers (if only a few big ones), Steam has something like a 75% market share on digital PC distribution, so if your game doesn't make it on Steam it's almost certainly doomed.

[TripJack]

what if all the book publishers reject your crap? are they censoring you? no product maker is entitled to having other companies sell their product... if a company don't want to sell or associate with it and you have to go elsewhere and make a lot less money that's really just too bad, but censorship doesn't enter into it

[Sonlirain]

what if all the book publishers reject your crap? are they censoring you? no product maker is entitled to having other companies sell their product... if a company don't want to sell or associate with it and you have to go elsewhere and make a lot less money that's really just too bad, but censorship doesn't enter into it

Again Steam is the company that actually allowed all sorts of shit be sold. Selling a piece of shit like "Insert name of any game made by killjoy" but won't sell another game just because it sparked some controversy.

Also i actually remember seeing a children book about poo somewhere that reeked of thinly veiled fetishism but somehow managed to get published and sold anyway.

[TripJack]

what they've sold before is not relevant, they can change their minds whenever they please

and refusing to sell something because of controversy would be to protect their own public image and reputation, not to 'protect society' or whatever the fuck censorship is theoretically supposed to do

[Yoink]

Looking forward to this game.
Exciting to see it Greenlit. Hopefully it runs on my laptop when it's finally released... perhaps I'll manage to acquire a new PC beforehand.

[Virtz]

It's censorship if the basis for refusal is objectionable content rather than quality. And it's possible to judge intent based on other works released by the said publisher.

[Rolan7]

It's censorship if the basis for refusal is objectionable content rather than quality. And it's possible to judge intent based on other works released by the said publisher.

Basically this, except I still don't think it counts as censorship for a distributor like Steam.  *technically*
But it's semantics, since getting on Steam is certainly important for even indie games to succeed nowadays.  Particularly since people might worry about giving this particular developer their credit card info (not that I think that worry would be justified).

[Virtz]

Nobody ever said anything about the legality of it, so why would we use the legal term? Censorship is not limited to bodies that can enforce it legally.

Also, Toady never tried to get Dwarf Fortress on Steam. The developers of Hatred did. They did it accordingly to Steam's rules and paid money for it, and they got singled out over the violent content in their game, despite it being comparable to other titles already on Steam. It's just shitty of whoever authorized it to do that.

[miauw62]

As I have said before, it's rather completely understandable that a PERSON would deny a game made apparently solely to create as much controversy as possible.

[Virtz]

As I have said before, it's rather completely understandable that a PERSON would deny a game made apparently solely to create as much controversy as possible.

If it was just to create controversy and nothing else, then I suspect there'd be far less effort visible. Why spend years in Unreal Engine with what can be accomplished in RPGMaker in months if that's all you're going for?

Like I have serious doubts about whether it'll actually be fun, but it looks like something that has real gameplay. Maybe even advanced physics (if those weren't just cherry-picked trailer shots). The controversial subject seems more like a marketting ploy that worked beyond all expectations.

And as I said before, Postal 1 did the exact same thing over a decade ago. Why does anyone still care this much? Like why is the controversy even here? Has the industry learned nothing?

[Leafsnail]

Technically yeah, it's censorship, in the same way that a terrestrial TV channel refusing to show hardcore pornography at 6pm on a Friday is censorship, or maybe in the same way that a publisher might refuse to publish a 2000 page book on why Hitler was right.  But it isn't the kind that anti-censorship campaigners actually talk about, and I don't think you could reasonably claim to be opposed to censorship in all its forms (if you are then there are all kinds of official Steam policies you should complain about first).

The argument about it being a monopoly is ridiculous.  You can publish content digitally online relatively easily even with no major publisher at all, and many games do this.  Yes, Steam is likely to make you more successful, but you don't have a right to have every single company help all of your projects be successful.