Valve Pulls Controversial Game Hatred from Greenlight - Update

[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.

 

[Don Incognito]

It calls into question the neutrality of Valve as a distributor of games.

What on Earth gave you the impression that Valve was "neutral" in the first place?

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.

In no way whatsoever has the creators' right to express themselves been obstructed. So no need to take up arms in their defense just yet, though I'm certain we all appreciate it.

 

[blackrave]

Good news. "Hatred" makes us look bad by association and appears neither fun nor fulfilling to play. Steam needs to be more judicious in what they sell, so hopefully they'll be making similarly mindful determinations in the future.

Oh, I see we have a time traveler among us
Mind pirating your copy of Half-Life 3 while you visit our time?

But in all seriousness, can we wait until game is out, before making such statements?

OT: Valve have all rights to pull whatever they want from Steam. But I'm pretty sure Hatred isn't worst and most violent game they offer. So it seems at least inconsistent.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

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.

Oh, I agree. I do think, however, that the devs capitalized maybe just a tad too much on provocative content to get the word out.

If having SOME provocative content gets the word out and generates PR at virtually no cost (e.g. The Rockstar approach) then it stands to reason that going for a no-holds-barred provocation-fest could have negative effects. Scare off the market and, well... You've scared off your market share.

At this point, looking at the trailer's YouTube page, I'm seeing a division between people who admit this is a tone-deaf game with about zero worth and too much moxie, and people who pretty much go "EFF YEAH! FUCK CONFORMITY, FUCK RESTRAINT, I'MMA KILL COPS ALL DAY LONG AND I'MMA LOVE IT! WOOT!"

And that just makes me groan. I play the GTA titles because they're a fun sandbox concept overall, not because I can kill cops or get hookers or whatever. If you're so desperate for something new that doing something reprehensible that's already been done a thousand times by other games is one of your few selling points (killing authority figures and innocents), then something's wrong with your initial pitch.

 

[chadachada123]

SNIP

MASSIVE UPDATE

It's back up! Whether it's temporary or not remains to be seen, but right now, it's back up with the votes still there.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=356532461

 

[AgedGrunt]

An obvious knee-jerk from political correctness, sensitivities toward active shooting incidents across the world.

Valve can do what it wants, but it's anything but consistent or diligent with all the other violent games and "games" so bad they shouldn't even be allowed to be sold as "games" available on Steam. They just couldn't ignore this one.

 

[SadisticFire]

Honestly my only issue is the same as Jim's. Quality control. If you're going to start filtering games, start filtering the idle shit stains that are some titles like:
Air Control
Garry's incident
Zion
that l4d2 reskin game
literally any game Jim has talked about.
I mean, it's a shock value game Hatred is. What ever, but looking at it, it's hell-of-a-lot-more of a game than fucking Air Control. It's just so weird they start here. They should start somewhere else.

 

[RicoADF]

While we're at it, lets force Valve to host Ethnic Cleansing and Custer's Revenge.

What's ethnic cleansing got to do with releasing a game.

Lets not stop there, lets have them host e-books. Not just any books either, but Jack Thompson's books, and on the front page. Because freedom! Anything less is censorship.

The difference here is that Steam has Postal, Manhunt, GTA etc already on it, this is another one of those games yet their saying no to it while yes to the others. The issue I have is inconsistency, it's like their giving indies a different set of rules than AAA games and it sounds like their saying indies aren't allowed to push the boundires like Rockstar etc.

 

[The Lunatic]

Because according to that logic the refusal to host neo-nazi propaganda on your privately-owned servers is "censorship". Yes, we must force people to sell things that they don't want to, for that is the truest freedom that there is! Whats this, property rights? Psssh, obviously just a plot by the extremists to get in the way of truest freedom.

The "Neo-Nazi" thing got debunked, by the way.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/20/7020277/ceo-behind-hatred-neo-nazi-anti-islamic-responds

Essentially, one developer once "liked" something on a page for a group that may be a little too right-wing for some tastes.

The whole talk of "Affiliation" or any of that bullshit was basically just the work of sensationalism and yellow journalism.

Whilst, I do agree that it's perhaps not the best thing to "like", you seriously can't actually believe that "liking" one page of facebook makes you a neo-nazi, right?

Remember, it's important to not just believe everything you read on the internet. :3

 

[Davroth]

Look here, it's back:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=356532461

This is quite interesting, I'll be curious to see what the background is, I hope this article receives an update to that extend.