Valve Pulls Controversial Game Hatred from Greenlight - Update

[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.

 

[Vigormortis]

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.

I agree, to an extent. But at the same time, as I said to another poster, remaining silent might be the better option in the long run.

For all we know the reasoning behind the game's removal could be something that, if known to the public, might be damaging to the developer. If that be the case, I would rather Valve remains mum on the details, lest questions of slander begin to spring up.

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 too wish for a bit more transparency on the matter. Or more to the point, on what they do and don't consider publishable material under the Valve name.

I know they don't allow AO software to bare the Valve label, which would be reason enough for a game like Hatred to be removed from Greenlight. And seeing as titles like Postal and Manhunt are not published by Valve, they have no cause to remove them from the storefront.

Still, some clarity would be appreciated.

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.

Oh, I know this all too well. I was just commenting on what I perceive to be a laughable trend within the community. I wasn't really setting out to change minds, per se. I was more attempting to share a humorous observation, with the ancillary intention of maybe, just maybe, allowing a few people to be aware of the contradictory nature of their comments.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

Censoring it now without directing intervening with the game's development would be impossible given that the game is still in development. You've mistaken "exercising one's basic consumer right in a capitalist system" with "censorship".

This makes no sense because Valve is a distributor, not a consumer. As such, they're not exercising any "basic consumer right". They're using their position of power to prevent that game from being distributed. Explain how this is any different from a publisher preventing a book from being published. Imagine this were the 1950s and the book in question were something like Nabokov's Lolita. If a publisher prevented the book from being published, would you still claim they're just "exercising their basic consumer right in a capitalist system"?

 

[FirstNameLastName]

It would be nice if we could discuss these types of issues for once without it so often beginning and ending at "____ is a private business, what they did is legal therefor it's right!"

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

It would be nice if we could discuss these types of issues for once without it so often beginning and ending at "____ is a private business, what they did is legal therefor it's right!"

Honestly, it's because there is no defending these types of censorship. The people who are defending it either haven't thought about the issue too hard or they're doing it out of some misplaced tribalist mindset (GG supports this, therefore I oppose it!).

There are no good arguments for censorship. None.

 

[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.

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

I read the article. I understood it wasn't out yet. What did I say that confused you? Was it the lack of tears or toxin?

 

[Ticklefist]

There are no good arguments for censorship. None.

Nobody's censored them. They're making the game they want to make. You just can't register it through Steam. That's not worth all the kicking and screaming you're doing.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

TIts their right to not host a product under the economic system of capitalism. The consumer and the distributor have the same right of choice, whether its buying or selling something. Valve owes it to nobody to host any game for anybody else unless there's a legally-binding contract involved.

If you're going to use the rationale that you insist, you shouldn't let anyone know that you're

It calls into question the neutrality of Valve as a distributor of games. This is especially true because they haven't said anything about why they made that decision, except some vague tweet about how it violated their ToS (which is BS because they probably were invoking the arbitrary catch-all clause, not any explicit reason).

I'm not arguing about the legality of the decision, it is clearly legal. I'm talking about the implicit contract which comes from the idea of Greenlight. They allow the community to vote on games and if they pass muster, they get Greenlit. What's the point of a democratic vote if you're going to arbitrarily exercise your power when you don't like the results of the vote? It is a decision made in bad faith and contradicts the whole idea of Greenlight.

They're not preventing the game from being distributed. They're not making any laws, they're not even asking other outlets to stock the game. They're simply choosing to not stock it themselves. Calling that censorship is like saying that you're censoring Pepsi Co. by buying Coca Cola. No business is owed your patronage, and no product is owed to be stocked outside of a legal mandate.

We're arguing a difference in scope. The biggest problem is with Greenlight and the arbitrary reason they pulled it from it after the community voted they wanted it. This is not just an issue of censorship, although that's there and it's why you're vehemently arguing for their right to do so. This is an issue of double-standards and inconsistent application of rules. Why ban this and allow Postal to be sold on the same platform? That's a clear double-standard.

Well, besides that a ublisher and a retail outlet fill two entirely different roles in the capitalist system, one is a videogame outlet choosing not to stock a piece of software, and the other is a book publisher, lets say, Penguin Publishing, lobbying for the book to be legally prohibited from existing. Because thats who actually preventing a book from being published is. No book publisher is required to print books at your whim. If Penguin Publishing rejected the Goku x Anne Frank fan fiction, they wouldn't be censoring the writer. If they tried to make the existence of that script illegal, then they would be attempting to censor it.

Lets put it another way. If somebody contributes to User Reviews, and its not part of The Escapist's featured content, the person who made whatever piece of content to User Reviews is not being censored. They're simply just not be given a platform either.

To take this to the logical extreme, you are not starving somebody in an impoverished nation by not giving your money to them, you're simply not assisting them.

We keep coming back to this. The ACLU argues that private censorship is, by law, still censorship. In fact, most censorship in America happens solely in the private sphere before being rendered illegal by the Supreme court once it gets that high.

From the ACLU:

Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/what-censorship

That is what we're doing. We're questioning these private censorship campaigns by being the groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression. I don't find anything in Hatred remotely appealing, but I will defend the right for the creator to express his wishes to the death.

 

[Revolutionary]

Meanwhile Infestation: Survivor stories AKA "The War Z", The Slaughtering grounds, and other shite are still very much available. The hypocrisy is glorious.