Valve Pulls Controversial Game Hatred from Greenlight - Update

[Signa]

This isn't a slippery slope,

Go ahead and keep saying that. This is the second game in as many weeks to be pulled by a retailer because someone who wasn't going to buy the game complained. You're right that it's their right, but I will remain skeptical of this slick grade.

That might be true if there was any sort of real campaign to have Hatred removed. I mean there was one guy in the indie scene from like a month or two ago, but that got less than a hundred supporters and has been dead in the water. And even if this did become more common, so what? Its not like that they're unable to distribute the game themselves. Its going to be a PC-exclusive, digital-exclusive indie title like most other indie games, and as much of a boost as being on the Steam front page can be, especially during a sale, anybody who wants the game isn't going to have any difficulty acquiring it. Oh no, they have to open a Google tab and search some other site that will sell it. Oh no, such an impossible task, how will consumers possibly get ahold of the game when its so tasking on their constitution?

Just like with the Target Australia thing, just because it probably won't have any measurable effect doesn't mean it's not bad, or should be ignored. I don't even know if this game is worth fighting for, but it still got pulled for dumb reasons. I'll praise Valve when they pull games that shouldn't be sold like half of the Early Access titles, but I've not heard any complaints against Hatred on those grounds.

 

[Signa]

Go ahead and keep saying that.

I will, because it's true. I know you have issues with truth statements, but I don't.

Nice quote mine, though. Omitting the relevant part as to why it's not.

No, I have issue with censorship of games based on "I'm offended" activism. I don't have any other issues. I can't say I even have an issue with you, just the way you argue with me.

I snipped the rest of your point because I didn't feel that it made up for the part that I did quote. I do think it's a slippery slope, or the start of one, and I needed to address that point because you ignored its relevance.

 

[Monsterfurby]

Regarding the update, may I just leave this here:

 

[Ticklefist]

Of course Gabe has taken the necessary steps to assure his company isn't cut out of the profit loop. The game is a guaranteed hit now.

Saving gaming indeed.

 

[Signa]

Just like with the Target Australia thing, just because it probably won't have any measurable effect doesn't mean it's not bad, or should be ignored. I don't even know if this game is worth fighting for, but it still got pulled for dumb reasons. I'll praise Valve when they pull games that shouldn't be sold like half of the Early Access titles, but I've not heard any complaints against Hatred on those grounds.

But its not a bad thing, at least from a moral perspective. Its just simply something not being stocked. An inconvenience as a consumer, sure, and damaging to your business if you're the one making the product, but there's nothing inherently moral about it. My local grocery store doesn't stock the type of Rice Krispie treats that I like, and the local videogame store doesn't stock Gamecube, PS2 or Gameboy Advance games. Its an inconvenience as a consumer, sure, but its not a moral dilemna, nobody is being wronged by not having it stocked.

I'm not talking about this from a morality perspective. If I was, I'd say this was a good thing because "filth like this shouldn't be in the hands of the general public!"

No, I consider it a bad thing when random internet rage or watchdog groups get listened to, because they hold the view I have above in quotes. You know, bullshit like Tiny Tina is racist, or Mortal Kombat is teaching kids to be violent.

 

[WarpedMind]

You know, I'm almost certainly not gonna play this game, it looks pretty boring and I've played a gorrilion games with the same kind of gameplay style, also the "Let's be as edgy as possible" joke will probably stop being humorous past the 5 minute mark.

But it just makes me smile that, when this game comes out and inevitably sells like absolute gangbusters it will all have been the fault of the assblasted moral crusaders who thought that the best way to prevent a game from succeeding was giving it as much attention as humanly possible.

Every single time something like this happens it always seems like people immediately think that somehow, the Streisand Effect won't apply to them because they're "right".

But whatever, the game will come out, a bunch of people will buy it, everyone will forget about it and in the end it will have made no impact and served no purpose except possibly as a another tale of the ironic failings of self-appointed moral guardians.

 

[major_chaos]

...Really dude? Really? Feel free to disagree with people, but that's no reason to let common respect fly out the window.

nnnope. sorry, I have exactly as much respect for this game, its devs, and its players as I do for the above of Ethnic cleansing, Japanese rape porn games, or those tasteless "Columbine simulator" games, that is to say absolutely none. The devs could not be idolizing spree killers any harder if they wore "I <3 Anders Brevik" tee shirts. It's repulsive.

Make sure to flag his comment for review. Pretty slam dunk as far as moderation is concerned.

Cute, but I didn't insult anyone on the site,(you guys being a general term for anybody) and precedent suggests that Its all about how specific you are, and I wasn't singling out anyone, let alone anyone on this site. For someone so quick to cry censorship, you seem awfully eager to see me modded for saying things you disagree with...

I'm sorry but I can't help but imagine the character in your avatar saying this. Somehow it's oddly apropriate...

Its actually intentional, no need to be sorry. I use the avatar because bar the, ya know fluffy bits, I actually have a lot in common with the character.

 

[Xan Krieger]

...Really dude? Really? Feel free to disagree with people, but that's no reason to let common respect fly out the window.

nnnope. sorry, I have exactly as much respect for this game, its devs, and its players as I do for the above of Ethnic cleansing, Japanese rape porn games, or those tasteless "Columbine simulator" games, that is to say absolutely none. The devs could not be idolizing spree killers any harder if they wore "I <3 Anders Brevik" tee shirts. It's repulsive.

Make sure to flag his comment for review. Pretty slam dunk as far as moderation is concerned.

Cute, but I didn't insult anyone on the site,(you guys being a general term for anybody) and precedent suggests that Its all about how specific you are, and I wasn't singling out anyone, let alone anyone on this site. For someone so quick to cry censorship, you seem awfully eager to see me modded for saying things you disagree with...

I'm sorry but I can't help but imagine the character in your avatar saying this. Somehow it's oddly apropriate...

Its actually intentional, no need to be sorry. I use the avatar because bar the, ya know fluffy bits, I actually have a lot in common with the character.

Let's take a look
"Its OK guys, game is back, you can stop complaining about nonexistent censorship and go back to furiously jerking it to your creepy snuff porn game."
Sounds like you were talking to the fans of this game (some of who are on this site) and you said that we fap to it. That sounds kinda insulting to us. Please rephrase it to be more polite.

OT: Looking forward to the game's release, might even pre-order it.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I'm pretty happy that it was put back on.

Now I disapprove of the game entirely, it seems to be to epitome of edginess for the sake of being edgy (like really, I turned on the trailer, listened to the black trench-coated meth addict's voice and burst out laughing). But if Valve was going to remove it for being violent they should have made a specific rule about it beforehand and enforced on similar games like Postal or Manhunt. Not to mention if they're going to curate games on the basis of explicit content then they have no excuse why they're not curating games like Air Control on the basis of quality. Consistency is paramount when you're the authority and Valve is historically abysmal at consistency.

On the lighter side; I just found this video and it's one of the funnier things I've seen all day:

 

[major_chaos]

OT: Looking forward to the game's release, might even pre-order it.

OK then, justify to me. What exactly about Hatred is good or redeemable? The super duper trying too hard 3edgy5me atheistic? The loving detail with which you repeatedly stab helpless innocents while they beg for mercy? The utterly generic twin stick topdown gameplay? The fetishized "aren't spree killers cool" protagonist? The fantasy of butchering your neighbors and classmates for juvenile reasons?
If you want me to not think this is a vile little game made by vile little people you need to give me some evidence to the contrary.

 

[Abomination]

OT: Looking forward to the game's release, might even pre-order it.

OK then, justify to me. What exactly about Hatred is good or redeemable? The super duper trying too hard 3edgy5me atheistic? The loving detail with which you repeatedly stab helpless innocents while they beg for mercy? The utterly generic twin stick topdown gameplay? The fetishized "aren't spree killers cool" protagonist? The fantasy of butchering your neighbors and classmates for juvenile reasons?
If you want me to not think this is a vile little game made by vile little people you need to give me some evidence to the contrary.

Nobody has to convince you of otherwise.

You are entitled to your opinion.

You don't have to buy the game

Other people can.

Everyone is happy.

 

[Xan Krieger]

OT: Looking forward to the game's release, might even pre-order it.

OK then, justify to me. What exactly about Hatred is good or redeemable? The super duper trying too hard 3edgy5me atheistic? The loving detail with which you repeatedly stab helpless innocents while they beg for mercy? The utterly generic twin stick topdown gameplay? The fetishized "aren't spree killers cool" protagonist? The fantasy of butchering your neighbors and classmates for juvenile reasons?
If you want me to not think this is a vile little game made by vile little people you need to give me some evidence to the contrary.

It appeals to me as a good way to blow off steam with some mindless violence. Besides all I asked for was some basic human respect, saying other people masturbate to something without even knowing them is not respectful. If you don't want to buy and play the game then don't, nobody is forcing you to. Its release will have no effect on you.

 

[Armadox]

OT: Looking forward to the game's release, might even pre-order it.

OK then, justify to me. What exactly about Hatred is good or redeemable? The super duper trying too hard 3edgy5me atheistic? The loving detail with which you repeatedly stab helpless innocents while they beg for mercy? The utterly generic twin stick topdown gameplay? The fetishized "aren't spree killers cool" protagonist? The fantasy of butchering your neighbors and classmates for juvenile reasons?
If you want me to not think this is a vile little game made by vile little people you need to give me some evidence to the contrary.

I'd like to answer your question with another question: What part of Kratos in God of War is redeemable? Does Seth Rogan's new movie, The Interview, have redeemability? Does a protagonist have to be redeemable? Twisted Metal Black didn't think so.

If I designed a video game where you can be an SS Officer in a concentration camp, but through out the game play you discover the officers loyalty to family, his hopes and dreams, and his hope for his country as you pull levers to gas the opposition. Is his intentions to better those in his life able to redeem a small bit of his humanity over the atrocities he preformed in a war?

Would that SS Officer be a better or worse person then the player characters in Smash TV, that gun down tons of people for money and prizes?

The game is not a good game, it does not house a good premise, but it can be as much a testament as what not to do as anything else. Past that, many games allow you to kill without mercy, but sitting in front of the controller to this game. Will you?

 

[Signa]

No, I consider it a bad thing when random internet rage or watchdog groups get listened to, because they hold the view I have above in quotes. You know, bullshit like Tiny Tina is racist, or Mortal Kombat is teaching kids to be violent.

These "random" people are often customers, something a business would do well to, at the very least, listen to before making a decision. I'm reminded of the Critical Miss strip from last week, where its essentially people only believe in this economic principle when it works for them, and are outraged when it works against their personal interests.

Oh, and the only people saying Tiny Tina was racist were white people who were saying "proper white people don't talk like that, only darkies do that", in other words, extremely racist white people. I know this because I saw it unfolding as it happened. Gearbox decided that they don't want to cater to racist shitheads, and left her as she was. Oh look, a company making a decision about their product in relation to people making demands about it, all of their own free will. Its almost like they can make decisions for themselves and aren't forced to do anything via consumer requests made in social media.

So then, what is good about listening to these customers? I remember reading that the writer for Tiny Tina was getting pretty flustered about the racism accusations, and started second-guessing himself on how he wrote her. I'm glad to hear that they actually called the naysayers out on their bullshit, but that doesn't mean that these other groups (Valve, Target) are taking the time to actually think for themselves. They are overreacting to a reactionary response.

Edit: Also, I didn't see the Critical Miss comic, but you won't see me doing that. What you WILL see me doing is supporting outcries when the issue people are mad about is them getting ripped off. All this outrage is completely justified if we're talking about a faulty product, or one that doesn't perform as advertized. Yes, you should get mad at a company that is scamming you, or selling lemons. Calling for the removal of a product or boycotting a store that sells such product when it causes danger or (financial?) damages is reasonable. What you shouldn't be doing is getting mad that there is a product being sold that you won't be buying. You're not a customer of such a product, and therefore your opinion doesn't count. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

On the lighter side; I just found this video and it's one of the funnier things I've seen all day:

This could only be better if you spent the game awkwardly throwing footballs at innocent civilians instead of shooting them. Then it would be a true Tommy Wiseau experience. XD

"No, please! DON'T THROW YOUR FOOTBALL AT ME!
- You're just a little chicken! CHEEP-CHEEPCHEEPCHEEEEEP!"

 

[Amir Kondori]

So much respect for Gabe Newell right now, he has said many times in the past he wants to get Valve out of the decision making process and turn Steam in an open platform for people to sell and distribute their games. This decision to remove Hatred, with no reasons given, was completely antithetical to that stated philosophy of what Valve wants Steam to be and I am glad Gabe stepped in to guide the company back on that path.

Frankly the decision was a disturbing precedent. Valve has no posted rules about what violence is OK violence and as has been pointed out by some many already there are lot of gruesomely violent games being sold today. We have Manhunt, we have GTA, in fact GTA V has one particularly gruesome and sadistic torture scene in it that has itself garnered a lot of controversy. In addition you have the Fallout games, which the first two allowed the killing of children NPCs, and plenty of other games that feature violence towards innocents, police officers, and the like.

I understand why people may find this game distasteful but that doesn't mean we should start allowing a store front to be our moral arbiters. Do you really want a business, no matter how well meaning, to be making the decision of which games are OK for you to play?

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Seeing as I was wrong about the involvement of shareholders, all I can see as a cause to this would have to be some moderator on the Greenlight service taking a personal offense to Hatred's content. I doubt Doug Lombardi personally pushed to have Hatred removed from Greenlight, his comment has that air of "Generic Corporate Response" that makes me think some Valve employee got antsy and left him and the rest of Valve to come up with a response.

I can understand why someone would do that, too. As I've said, it's spineless and it's actually in poor taste, considering how Valve wants to get out of the curation aspects of Steam. Even with that in mind, can you blame the hypothetical culprit for losing their shit at a game like Hatred, after the recent school shooting and what's happened in Sydney? It's in human nature to want to exclude anything that might cause a relapse of those events. It's not defensible and it's cowardly, sure - but it's still a perfectly human response.

I can only hope that the mod that's responsible for this kerfuffle got a stern talking-to on the difference between "This offends me on a personal level" and "This is objectively reprehensible and needs to be broadly stamped out".

Nobody cares about what happens to offend us on a personal level. Plenty of moral crusaders will miss the fact of Hatred being pure and simple artifice and will actively call for its removal. People who do know how games tend to revolve on score-increasing or level-clearing mechanics won't be surprised at all.

The game does honestly pack a pretty serious case of 6edgy7me, but the mechanics in and of themselves aren't offending me. Heck, Geometry Wars is essentially a pared-down and arcade-friendly version of Hatred. This? If anything, it reminds me of the kinds of stuff I used to listen to as a teenager, if only to look vaguely counter-cultural.

Destructive Creations can try and slather their basic twin-stick mechanics in as much Raw HD monochrome gore as they can muster, it won't change the fact that you're just playing Another Goddamn Twin-Stick Shooter.

 

[Lieju]

You know, I'm almost certainly not gonna play this game, it looks pretty boring and I've played a gorrilion games with the same kind of gameplay style, also the "Let's be as edgy as possible" joke will probably stop being humorous past the 5 minute mark.

But it just makes me smile that, when this game comes out and inevitably sells like absolute gangbusters it will all have been the fault of the assblasted moral crusaders who thought that the best way to prevent a game from succeeding was giving it as much attention as humanly possible.

Yes, almost like how Sarkeesian stays relevant...
Funny, that.

You're probably exactly their target audience though.

 

[Strazdas]

Its not "damaging to society" that the world isn't built entirely to be convenient for you, just like its not "damaging to society" that I can't get all my Christmas shopping done in one store.

It is damaging to society that a videogame store refuses to sell videogames because of its theme. Its not about convenience, its about not being allowed to force personal beliefs on everyone.

a) Even though its digital distribution, they still do have a limited capacity of what they can stock via server capacity
b) Its demonstrable that in the capitalist system that stocking a product can be counter-productive for the aims of a for-profit business
c) That the retailer has the right in the capitalist system to refuse to sell anything for any reason

Have you noticed that there's actually a few movies on Steam? That makes them a film retailer, so by your reasoning, doesn't that require them to sell all other films, including racist propaganda like Birth of a Nation? Or else is it "censorship" to exercise your basic rights as a retailer, even at the expense of the business?

a) would be true if it was somone operating from moms basement. storage is cheap enough that its irrelevant to steam.
b) i never claimed that capitalist system is a good way to do things.
c) yes he has. Hence, the problem.

Hosting a few self-made films hardly makes them retailer.

Wait wait wait....marketplaces should not have the right to determine the content they sell? Really?

Yes, really.

that's the joke, last week a bunch of people were defending Targets right to not sell something based on consumer feedback and now valve is selling something based on consumer feedback and a bunch of people are acting like their being forced into it. And I find that hilarious personally.

I claimed they are being forced in both cases. have you actually checked for the overlap in your test group? because i see none.

These "random" people are often customers, something a business would do well to, at the very least, listen to before making a decision. .

well the costumers have spoken so well it is the 7th most upvoted greenlight game with massive success. so letting the game through would be listening to vast majority of your costumers.

 

[Signa]

So then, what is good about listening to these customers?that one.

The point there is that they're not being forced to do anything by these customers. They can happily ignore them, just like Target AU could've ignored the initial petition, and just like how Target AU is ignoring all of the reactionary faux petitions following one, like the one to remove the Bible from store shelves. Now a good manager would pay attention and not haphazardly dismiss them all, but that thats not to say that its necessarily the right choice to ultimately heed the requests or not.

That.... doesn't really explain what's good about removing a product. Yes, it's their choice and I never said otherwise, but what is good about losing options for the public? The company? You're saying you think that they are looking at stats that say their bottom line will be damaged, but I don't think they really are. Not on the level you seem to imply. Companies know that consumers are mindless sheep. We've been trying to boycott things like DRM for years, or ignoring dumb things by "voting with our wallets" and yet nothing changes. At best, these are PR moves to make it look like they listen to the customers, not actual financial decisions based on data. By doing so, they are encouraging this kind of petty activism, and I'm against that because it hurts the rest of us that don't care or have a more level head about it.

but that doesn't mean that these other groups (Valve, Target) are taking the time to actually think for themselves. They are overreacting to a reactionary response.

They're thinking for themselves just fine. They're businesses, and they put the dollar first. If they think they'll make money with a product, they'll stock it. If they think they'll make money by removing a product, they'll remove it. If they think they'll make more money by not stocking a product before its release, they won't stock it, and finally, if they see a backlash to the removal/refusal of stocking the product, they'll backpedal and stock it. Its that simple. It would only be "hypocrisy" if you actually take this as a serious moral standard, rather than what it is - a calculated business move by an amoral corporation. Have you noticed how Steam hasn't put Air Control back on its listing? Its because people weren't making a fuss about its removal like they were for Hatred.

Or maybe because Air Control was undefendable.

*sigh* I know I'm going to kick myself for going here, but I feel the need to color my point a little more clearly. The point I'm trying to get across doesn't even really depend on how faceless the corporation is, what their rights are to choose, how much money they stand to make or lose, or even how important it is to be allowed to choose as a consumer what I get to buy. What this boils down to is these people are using the same tactics as terrorism[footnote]I can't stress this intentional hyperbole here enough. Much of activism draws parallels to terrorism, so this is not a new revelation.[/footnote] to get their way. Wait, wait, wait, don't stop reading. I know that was stupid, but hear me out. I'm not trying to say that they are actual, literal terrorists, or that they should be compared to one, but the same rationale that we use with terrorism should be applied to these people. They have made an emotional decision and are giving a greater power an ultimatum: "Listen to us or we will hurt you where it counts." The reason we don't negotiate with terrorists is because it proves that the tactic can work, and therefore they should try it again. We've already seen the same tactics work twice in two weeks, so what's to stop another group of people trying for a third next week? That's why I'm drawing the line in the sand here. I don't want this behavior to be permissible. This isn't like the bad products I mentioned before, this is someone unhappy with something that doesn't actually affect them.