Valve Pulls Controversial Game Hatred from Greenlight - Update

[EvilRoy]

I find it fascinating, in this particular instance, that many of the same people who routinely complain that Valve doesn't listen to it's customers are now complaining that Valve keeps capitulating to their customers concerns over perceived "offensive content" on their Storefront.

It's as if last month it was:
"Valve needs to curate their storefront!"
"Valve doesn't listen to their customers!"

And now it's:
"Valve needs to stop censoring their storefront!"
"Valve needs to stop giving in to whims of their customers!"

My concern personally is consistency. If Valve is going to start curating, fine and dandy - but they need to actually state the basis on which the curation will be performed, and whether they will grandfather in games already on steam or go back and clean them up.

Honestly I don't care at all if they grandfather things or not, but it kind of matters going forward when it comes to my purchasing decisions. If Steam is going to start pulling morally questionable or poorly made games, then I need to start seeking another platform to get that on.

 

[Single Shot]

People here have watched enough to know the game isn't purely about killing civilians, right? A lot of people here haven't even watched the trailer (that clearly shows police and SWAT shooting back) to know this isn't just a civilian slaughter sim. It's an isometric shooter with a 'lone gunman' theme. A delicate topic sure but if that's a reason a game shouldn't cover it then where is the line? We have games that let you slaughter civilians already, and even games that reward you for it, so I don't see why everyone is getting so wound up about this one.

 

[Vigormortis]

Who exactly are they "listening" to here? The only hard proof we have of the game's reception on Steam was it's progress on Greenlight, which was almost universally positive by a wide margin.

So where were the people rallying against this game? Because out of 14 thousand total votes, only 1 thousand of them were against the game.

I didn't say they were actually capitulating to some group making demands for the removal of the game. I was talking about those who are complaining about the removal of the game by claiming Valve is giving in to customer complaints; the same people who routinely assert that Valve never listens to it's customers.

I would ask that you please refrain from accusing me of claiming things I never claimed. Thank you.

My concern personally is consistency. If Valve is going to start curating, fine and dandy - but they need to actually state the basis on which the curation will be performed, and whether they will grandfather in games already on steam or go back and clean them up.

To be frank, they don't owe us an explanation as to why it was removed. Technically speaking, they don't even owe the dev an explanation. (though, from the sounds of things, they did explain their reason to the developer)

As well, they've already taken steps to remove games from the platform that received enough user or media backlash. I.E. Air Control, Earth: Year 2066, etc.

So I'm not entirely sure where one can see a lack of consistency.

Honestly I don't care at all if they grandfather things or not, but it kind of matters going forward when it comes to my purchasing decisions. If Steam is going to start pulling morally questionable or poorly made games, then I need to start seeking another platform to get that on.

I agree. And one should seek out other options.

My primary point of contention is with those who are calling this current situation "stifling censorship", even though they've demanded for months that Valve should curate their storefront.

That, to me, is the only hypocrisy in effect in this whole 'debacle'.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

I didn't say they were actually capitulating to some group making demands for the removal of the game. I was talking about those who are complaining about the removal of the game by claiming Valve is giving in to customer complaints; the same people who routinely assert that Valve never listens to it's customers.

I would ask that you please refrain from accusing me of claiming things I never claimed. Thank you.

Oh alright. My mistake, I misunderstood you.

I suppose some curating is better than no curating, and everyone knows that Greenlight needed a lot of it. But there's a lot about how Valve handled this situation and what they said that really stinks to me.

 

[RicoADF]

I've no love for the game, from the sounds of it, the game is Postal 2 without anything that actually gave Postal 2 merit. I do find it a tad worrying that Valve is refusing to host it, since they've nearly got a monopoly in regards to digital distribution, and we all know how important Steam is to a game based on indie dev after indie dev after indie dev. I'm not surprised though. Apparently the game is being developed by skinheads, and I certainly wouldn't want to sell something along the likes of Ethnic Cleansing in my place of business, so I can't fault Valve for that either.

Their polish developers who's families suffered under the gastapo, whatever idiot suggested they were Nazi skinheads was seriously stupid or nasty.

Frankly I think Valve should be required to sell it because it already sells Postal and Manhunt, their being hypercrits.

 

[Nurb]

Polygon, as is their recent MO lately, did a hit piece on the devs, calling them neo-nazis for liking something on facebook that turned out to be from a conservative webpage.

Turns out more than one lost family to the Nazis, being Polish and all... OOPS!

Back when gamers were defending ALL games regardless of content, like Doom and Mortal Kombat, we didn't have our own media at the time attacking developers for making stupid senseless violence.

 

[EvilRoy]

My concern personally is consistency. If Valve is going to start curating, fine and dandy - but they need to actually state the basis on which the curation will be performed, and whether they will grandfather in games already on steam or go back and clean them up.

To be frank, they don't owe us an explanation as to why it was removed. Technically speaking, they don't even owe the dev an explanation. (though, from the sounds of things, they did explain their reason to the developer)

As well, they've already taken steps to remove games from the platform that received enough user or media backlash. I.E. Air Control, Earth: Year 2066, etc.

So I'm not entirely sure where one can see a lack of consistency.

They owe us only as much as our dollar buys, but I am somewhat troubled that the relatively low cost of transparency on minor items like this hasn't been worked in to the pricing already.


The inconsistent behavior I have observed thus far hasn't been especially heinous (broken games/questionable content being allowed so long as complaints don't explode), but I'm concerned about it developing further in future. If they explain their reasoning in a straightforward manner, neither side gets surprised later on. I might be unimpressed by Target Australia, but they were forthright with their reasoning, and I know to expect similar reactions in the future.

Honestly I don't care at all if they grandfather things or not, but it kind of matters going forward when it comes to my purchasing decisions. If Steam is going to start pulling morally questionable or poorly made games, then I need to start seeking another platform to get that on.

I agree. And one should seek out other options.

My primary point of contention is with those who are calling this current situation "stifling censorship", even though they've demanded for months that Valve should curate their storefront.

That, to me, is the only hypocrisy in effect in this whole 'debacle'.

Fair enough, but keep in mind that calling out hypocrisy only makes you feel good. It isn't a counterargument and it never changes minds. Worse in this case, because without a Venn diagram I don't know how much cross membership between those groups exists.

 

[Ticklefist]

Valve hasn't prevented anyone from buying and playing this game. If you feel deprived of the game because you can't register it through Steam then that is on you.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

Valve hasn't prevented anyone from buying and playing this game. If you feel deprived of the game because you can't register it through Steam then that is on you.

The game hasn't even come out yet. Shows how much you know about this subject.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

You act like many of the shitty games people are demanding curation for haven't gotten through Greenlight themselves.

I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of that. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Its not like Valve owes it to the game to get through Greenlight anyways, nor do they owe anybody their rationale for rejecting the game from its platform. Gabe Newell could ban Fallout New Vegas from Steam tomorrow because he thinks that Fallout 3 is better and he just wanted the ultimate fanboy dig.

I don't know what you're trying to prove here. That Gabe could make a shitty business decision if he wants to, because Steam is a private organization? Gabe could replace the entire front page of steam with a video of him getting a rectal exam performed by Doug Lombardi while Robin Walker reads the Turner Diaries. That's not really saying anything.

Gabe can make a decision like that or banning Fallout New Vegas if he wants to. But he obviously won't because he's a professional and Steam is a professional service. I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect Valve act like professionals and be honest about this. Especially to the developers of Hatred. Don't they deserve to know why their game got kicked off Greenlight? Telling them their game is "Violating Terms of Service" without elaborating on how exactly it does that, seems really sloppy to me. Seriously. Even Blizzard was willing to take the time to respond to me personally when I got suspended from battlenet if I asked them why, but Valve can't take the time to describe to a developer how their game violates their Terms of Service? What the hell is going on here?

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I mostly agree with TotalBiscuit and Jim Sterling, and I suspect that the crux of the issue has to do with some of Valve's shareholders or higher-ups potentially having connections or personal aspirations that get in the way of a completely impartial administration.

I mean, if I were the head of a content curation service and I knew that one of our bread-winning shareholders is a Family Values type who's likely to have some serious pull on the board, I'd probably chicken out and nuke a controversial game's application - all for fear of losing or negatively affecting my job.

Considering, I can sort of understand why Valve did this. It's spineless of them, but it makes sense from an administration-related point of view. On the flipside, Hatred is just so desperately edgy that I'm honestly bored by the footage the trailer shows.

"HUMANITY SUCKS, GONNA KILL ALL THE PEOPLE I SEE, HRKDLRKGLRGLARG.
- I see. I'll just be over there, playing games that frame their violent actions in a diegetic context that's actually worthwhile. Like, I dunno, XCOM or the BioShock series or, fuck, practically anything else.
- YOU'RE JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, HUUUUUUUUUR.
- And you're trying too hard. Get a haircut."

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

Valve hasn't prevented anyone from buying and playing this game. If you feel deprived of the game because you can't register it through Steam then that is on you.

The game hasn't even come out yet. Shows how much you know about this subject.

There's no contradiction in there whatsoever. All of that works perfectly well in the present tense.

I didn't say the poster was making a contradiction, just that said poster is speaking out of ignorance on the topic.

It also ignores the fact that many games don't get any sales at all if they don't make it on Steam. They have a monopoly on digital distribution.

I don't understand why you'd call for a community vote and pull the results, even though it had a >90% approval rating on Greenlight with over 13k votes. Why have a vote at all? Why do they allow Postal to be on Steam? Isn't that game just as controversial as Hatred?

What bothers me more than anything is the current social trend to censor games. If Manhunt came out in this climate, there is no doubt it would have been censored.

 

[Ishigami]

Those are old stories not new ones. When Anders Breivik murdered 77 people in Norway the shops in Norway took WoW off sale. It was the appropriate course at that moment. When 9/11 happened they changed the advertising posters for Spider Man because they featured the world trade centre, again appropriate course at that moment. Postal et al are old stories and the media has long sinced moved on but the killings I mentioned are current and Valve responded to current events.

WoW was at least directly linked to Breivik life and yet no it wasn't. It was moronic and reactional as the connection is merely coincidental.
It is simply sucking up do a completely misguided public reaction or even better: A feared possible misguided public reaction.
Btw. WoW was old at the time so is Postal etc now yet still on Steam. May I say that Hatred cannot influence anything yet as isn?t even available. If anything why not blame older games.
Mind you Postal, GTA and Manhunt had their fair share of questionable lime light at their time as well.

Now I personally wouldn?t have cared one bit about the Twin Tower commercials for Spiderman but like I said we have to deal here with the feeble and easily offended mind set of US citizens.
So I get at least to change plans to not unnecessarily offend people for an upcoming product as it would endanger the bottom-line. However afaik no cinema refused to play Spiderman because it plays in New York?
Hatred does not endanger the bottom line of Steam/Valve. There is no immediate business necessity to change policy. If anything it would endanger the bottom line of Destructive Creations.
Well now it does anyway thanks to Steams market share.

Look I don?t give a rat?s fuck about Hatred but: There were terrorist attacks all over the world no one cared about Battlefield or CoD being set right in that setting at that very time!
The way Valve reacts is mind baffling. Air Control & Co. doesn?t matter because Air Control & Co. was probably removed due to it barely being operational, Hatred was clearly refused because of its content.
It took Valve ages to react to Air Control yet Hatred didn?t even had the chance to prove its actual quality as It was removed asap on promotional material alone.
I?m one of the advocator of (technical) quality control on Steam but this process had little to do with quality control as far as I can tell.

 

[CaitSeith]

I just found out that Valve doesn't seem to publish AO-rated games (Manhunt 2 in Steam is an M-rated censored toned down version). Hatred will most likely get that rating. I don't know if that makes Valve better or worse, but at least there is a logical explanation.

 

[Vigormortis]

Oh alright. My mistake, I misunderstood you.

That's quite alright. Happens to everyone.

And I'd be just the worst kind of hypocrite if I shamed you for doing something I've done countless times myself.

I suppose some curating is better than no curating, and everyone knows that Greenlight needed a lot of it.

Oh, Greenlight needs a lot more than just a bit of curating...

But there's a lot about how Valve handled this situation and what they said that really stinks to me.

I agree, actually. And while I still stand by my assertion that they do not owe us an explanation, providing one would still go a LONG way towards clarifying the situation. Not to mention possibly clearing the air of any potential negative PR.

Though, that said, staying silent on the matter might end up being the more logical (and mutually beneficial) choice in the long run.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I mostly agree with TotalBiscuit and Jim Sterling, and I suspect that the crux of the issue has to do with some of Valve's shareholders or higher-ups potentially having connections or personal aspirations that get in the way of a completely impartial administration.

I mean, if I were the head of a content curation service and I knew that one of our bread-winning shareholders is a Family Values type who's likely to have some serious pull on the board, I'd probably chicken out and nuke a controversial game's application - all for fear of losing or negatively affecting my job.

Considering, I can sort of understand why Valve did this. It's spineless of them, but it makes sense from an administration-related point of view. On the flipside, Hatred is just so desperately edgy that I'm honestly bored by the footage the trailer shows.

Unless things changed recently Valve should still be privately owned, i.e. answering to no shareholders, they just found the game nasty and didn't want it.

Yes it blows that Valve is in a near monopoly position for PC games, but that is a whole other problem. It still doesn't mean they are obligated to put everyone's nasty shit on display.
And let's not even for a moment pretend the devs mistakenly stumbled into a sensitive topic that unjustly provoked a response, they fucking knew exactly what sort of disturbing shit they are making and that is exactly why they made it, don't cry me a river if the rock you threw up bonks you on the head.