Valve Pulls Controversial Game Hatred from Greenlight - Update

[Scarim Coral]

So Gabe think "it wasn't a good decision" to pulled the game off Steam? Did he not watched the trailer himself?

 

[NiPah]

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.

I'm ok with Steam pulling games for misrepresentation in advertisements for what the product actually is.

I'm not ok with Steam pulling games because a group is morally outraged over it's content.

I'm ok with Steam pulling games because it features hardcore uncensored pornography.

I'm not ok with Steam pulling a game because it's "too black" and may attract an unwanted consumer base.

Sure it may just be my opinion that Steam not pull games because they appeal to a black consumer base, and by all means Steam has every right in a free market to pull every game that might appeal to a certain race, but I'm going to be angry when then do.

A good example of this is when Abercrombie and Fitch explained the reason why they didn't have clothes for fat people was because because the CEO doesn't want fat people shopping at his store.

Sure you can parrot the classic "they have a right to not carry clothes for fat people, it's a free market", and you'd be right, but you can also be outraged for the reasons they choose not to carry said product.

 

[Gardenia]

So Gabe think "it wasn't a good decision" to pulled the game off Steam? Did he not watched the trailer himself?

Yesterday, my cataphracts trampled about 2700 cypriot slingers in Rome 2 (Ffs Cyprus, protect them with some hoplites). I have spent hours in Postal 2 creating Rube Goldberg-type executions that would make Jigsaw from Saw blush. I nuked Megaton. Manhunt is on steam. Power sliding over joggers/Elvis impersonators in GTA/GTA2 was super fun. Hotline Miami rewards you for keeping your manslaughter varied.

I think it's correct of the holy Gabe to keep it on steam, and not cave to peer pressure. No matter how indelicate (and boy, is it indelicate) the game is. People have voted to have it greenlit, and that's fine. Causing an outrage over this game will make it popular.

My prediction: It's gonna be a crap game, made for 13-year-old boys who think "mature" means "gory."[small]Oh well, prepubescent boys need something to do when they're not bedding my mother, I suppose.[/small]

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I never had any intention of buying to game whether it's on Steam or not, but I'm happy that it's back on Steam. While Steam is a privately owned company and has the rights to choose what to see, they are basically holding a monopoly on the PC market. Them deciding to not sell a game for whatever reason is the closest thing to censoring that we can get on the internet.
The game is GTA minus the cars and bad humor. I've seen things that are much worse in games than this and no one gives a fuck. Why now? Because the US has a problem with school shootings? Well that sucks for you guys but maybe you should try fix is rather than censor shit and pretend school shootings don't happen. Steam is a store and they should have all the things that the customer want and not remove something because someone dislikes it.

I've said the same thing when the shit about GTA in Kangarooland happened. This is a childish move. I don't like it therefore no one else should enjoy it. The game doesn't harm anyone nor does it break and laws. There is no reason not to sell it.

 

[not_you]

Well, Since it's back up I guess there's nothing more to really say on the issue...

But, Valve has the right to refuse sale of whatever it wants since, well, Valve is a big company and can make it's own decisions...

HOWEVER

Props to the developer who didn't throw a massive fit and, well, threaten to kill GabeN...

So, yeah, +1 to the dev for not turning into a child, and I guess that was one of the deciding factors when Valve decided to put it back up... Eh, could be worse..

 

[Xan Krieger]

Someone got banned from the Hatred forum so they paid $100 to put a game on Greenlight called "Kill all the kids"
The description?

Spoiler: spoilered for length

"Kill all the kids is the definitive free killing simulator. Kill arbitrary and random cute kids in kindergartens and schools. Put at smile in your face. Everything is allowed on Steam, in the name of "freedom", Gabe Newell support this game too in line with the game HALTRED. neo-Nazi comments and nicks users are also allowed too in thar forum. Be free to admit any kind off trash in and international and popular store. An don´t forget, enjoy Steam Sales.

Note: This is my only way of protest becouse i was banned from hatred forum. I claim for justice and real freedom of speech. IN GAMES, IN LIFE! THERE IS NO WAY FOR CERTAIN THINGS! UNEXCUSED VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES ITS A ♥♥♥♥ING SHAME! WHERE IS THE LIMIT? 11S PLANE SIMULATOR. "I KILL MY FAMILY BECOUSE IM BORED" "TAKE JUDES ON GERMAN CAMPS"! OPEN YOUR EYES GABEN NEWELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[marioandsonic]

I have no intention of buying this game (it just looks like it's trying to be edgy for the sake of being edgy), but it should be allowed to be sold on Steam.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Someone got banned from the Hatred forum so they paid $100 to put a game on Greenlight called "Kill all the kids"
The description?

Spoiler: spoilered for length

"Kill all the kids is the definitive free killing simulator. Kill arbitrary and random cute kids in kindergartens and schools. Put at smile in your face. Everything is allowed on Steam, in the name of "freedom", Gabe Newell support this game too in line with the game HALTRED. neo-Nazi comments and nicks users are also allowed too in thar forum. Be free to admit any kind off trash in and international and popular store. An don´t forget, enjoy Steam Sales.

Note: This is my only way of protest becouse i was banned from hatred forum. I claim for justice and real freedom of speech. IN GAMES, IN LIFE! THERE IS NO WAY FOR CERTAIN THINGS! UNEXCUSED VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES ITS A ♥♥♥♥ING SHAME! WHERE IS THE LIMIT? 11S PLANE SIMULATOR. "I KILL MY FAMILY BECOUSE IM BORED" "TAKE JUDES ON GERMAN CAMPS"! OPEN YOUR EYES GABEN NEWELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Source? I can't find any reference to it.
If it is true though, it just makes the person sound bitter and childish.

Edit: Never mind, i found it on greenlight.

 

[Darkmantle]

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.

If they are pulling it for moral reasons, it's now a moral issue. There is a difference between no longer stocking, or choosing not to stock a product, and pulling it for moral reasons.

Your attempts to conflate the two is a disservice to everyone.

 

[LordMonty]

Darkness exsists in the actions we see around the world so to see that reflected in any art format is natural. This game embraces something that is questionable, sinister and down right wrong but as long as its not biat, rasist or directly refrencing real life instances with the intent to cause people offence then it should exsist. If you don't like it don't buy it.

Personally not really my cup of tea but it has a right to exist, might be rubbish anyhow.

 

[major_chaos]

It appeals to me as a good way to blow off steam with some mindless violence.

Yea I'm gonna be blunt, that scares me. In the same way as someone saying the put Hostel on in the background for relaxing ambiance would scare me.

Someone got banned from the Hatred forum so they paid $100 to put a game on Greenlight called "Kill all the kids"
The description?

"Kill all the kids is the definitive free killing simulator. Kill arbitrary and random cute kids in kindergartens and schools. Put at smile in your face."

Someone needs to tell this guy that its not satire if all you do is describe the game you are trying to satirize.

What part of Kratos in God of War is redeemable?

He cared about his family, and in the end he cares about Pandora (was that her name? I haven't played GoW3 in years). In between that he has been consumed by his own desire for vengeance and its destroying him. The ending of GoW3 is not a happy one, nor is it one that vindicates the protagonist. His quest for revenge has destroyed everything he cared about and possibly the entire world.

Does Seth Rogan's new movie, The Interview, have redeemability?

Can't really answer that seeing as all I know about it is that North Korea really hates it. Although I would say that unless it has a scene where Seth Rogan grabs a random woman off the street, shoves a gun in her mouth, takes a second to revel in the fear and then pulls the trigger, its probably much less repugnant than Hatred.

Does a protagonist have to be redeemable?

Not necessarily but I was calling the entire game devoid of anything redeeming, not just the PC.

Twisted Metal Black didn't think so.

Thing about Twisted Metal is that the playable characters
a. Are killing each other for a prize, not slaughtering bystanders for lolz.
b. Are not in any way made out to be ideal or admirable, whereas nameless murderguy is clearly put a pedestal by that trailer.
c. All have really horrible things happen to them at the end, but considering the devs are clearly in love with him Hatred guy is probably going to ascend to Valhalla on a rocketship make of the people he killed or something.

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?

That would not be a game I would play, but it would at least be one with a point. Hatred has no point, its pure petty base sadism.

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 difference is that SmashTV PC is engaged in combat with people capable of, and attempting to, kill him

but sitting in front of the controller to this game. Will you?

I don't understand the question.

 

[Xan Krieger]

It appeals to me as a good way to blow off steam with some mindless violence.

Yea I'm gonna be blunt, that scares me. In the same way as someone saying the put Hostel on in the background for relaxing ambiance would scare me.

Someone got banned from the Hatred forum so they paid $100 to put a game on Greenlight called "Kill all the kids"
The description?

"Kill all the kids is the definitive free killing simulator. Kill arbitrary and random cute kids in kindergartens and schools. Put at smile in your face."

Someone needs to tell this guy that its not satire if all you do is describe the game you are trying to satirize.

What part of Kratos in God of War is redeemable?

He cared about his family, and in the end he cares about Pandora (was that her name? I haven't played GoW3 in years). In between that he has been consumed by his own desire for vengeance and its destroying him. The ending of GoW3 is not a happy one, nor is it one that vindicates the protagonist. His quest for revenge has destroyed everything he cared about and possibly the entire world.

Does Seth Rogan's new movie, The Interview, have redeemability?

Can't really answer that seeing as all I know about it is that North Korea really hates it. Although I would say that unless it has a scene where Seth Rogan grabs a random woman off the street, shoves a gun in her mouth, takes a second to revel in the fear and then pulls the trigger, its probably much less repugnant than Hatred.

Does a protagonist have to be redeemable?

Not necessarily but I was calling the entire game devoid of anything redeeming, not just the PC.

Twisted Metal Black didn't think so.

Thing about Twisted Metal is that the playable characters
a. Are killing each other for a prize, not slaughtering bystanders for lolz.
b. Are not in any way made out to be ideal or admirable, whereas nameless murderguy is clearly put a pedestal by that trailer.
c. All have really horrible things happen to them at the end, but considering the devs are clearly in love with him Hatred guy is probably going to ascend to Valhalla on a rocketship make of the people he killed or something.

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?

That would not be a game I would play, but it would at least be one with a point. Hatred has no point, its pure petty base sadism.

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 difference is that SmashTV PC is engaged in combat with people capable of, and attempting to, kill him

but sitting in front of the controller to this game. Will you?

I don't understand the question.

Why would it scare you that I would do something that wouldn't negatively affect anyone? There's no reason to be afraid.

 

[kuolonen]

Considering the kind of unfinished utter shite that does get through the steam store, as frequently pointed out by our late Jim Sterling, it would have been weird to block this game.

 

[WWmelb]

To be fair, i don't find anything that "Edgy" or even "attempted Edgy" about this game. It looks fun.. in the same way slasher films are fun.

Why do people watch slasher films? Because it's fun to see average people get mulched to death in gory and new ways. That's the simple truth of it. And really, that's what this game appears to be to me. You are playing a modern day Jason Vorhees or Mike Myers and having some fun with it.

How the hell is this game ANY different to watching a final destination movie?

Yes i'm looking forward to playing it just to chuckle at people dying in many different ways.

I'm probably a bad person, but i've always wanted a game where you play as the likes of a Jason or Mike, and this is about as close to it as i'm going to get.

 

[major_chaos]

Why would it scare you that I would do something that wouldn't negatively affect anyone? There's no reason to be afraid.

Because you just said that pseudo-realistic spree murder is a good way to blow off steam? Nothing personal but do you seriously not realize how socially maladjusted "ah, fantasizing about butchering my neighbors in cold blood while they beg for mercy, how relaxing" sounds? I mean, I'm not pissing myself here, the likelihood that you are actually a repressed murder is very low, and even if you are its astronomically unlikely that I'll be around to get whacked when you snap and decide its time to make your fantasy a reality, but it still creeps me out. Maybe its because of the degree I'm pursuing and studying what a real execution murder looks like sours the taste of fake execution murder, but somehow I think I would have disapproved of this even if I had studied something else.

I'm also not convinced the game is harmless. I don't believe it will make people murders (just attract people who have those fantasies), but if the media gets a hold of this then all the pundits will be on the fucking warpath, now more enabled than ever to convince the uninformed public that the "school shooting simulator" and "killing women for points" rhetoric is true and the law needs to step in and control this sick filth.

 

[Something Amyss]

No, I have issue with censorship of games based on "I'm offended" activism.

So far, there has been zero evidence that happened here. So you should have no issue.

I don't have any other issues.

Then why are you committing slippery slope fallacies? That seems to indicate the exact opposite.

I can't say I even have an issue with you, just the way you argue with me.

You keep making stuff up and I'm concerned with truth value. Yes, you have an issue with the way I argue with you--the exact one I described.

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.

Yes, the part where I explain that this is nothing new or even remotely new is in no way relevant to the issue of a slippery slope.

Wait, what?

Yes, really.

So do we mandate that Steam sell all PC games, or just the ones you personally favour?

 

[Signa]

snip

You're doing it again...

You know, we both have the same data, and yet have reached different interpretations of that data. That doesn't make you right or me wrong. Just FYI.

 

[Signa]

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?

They have no ethical obligation to the public. They're not even obligated so far in their necessity to avoid bankruptcy.

You are committed to bringing ethics and morality into this conversation. I said neither have anything to do with this discussion.

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.

If consumers were these mindless sheep you claim they are, then Good Old Games wouldn't exist, Xbox One would have its originally planned, extremely anti-consumer functions, EA's Project Ten Dollar wouldn't have failed, Ubisoft wouldn't have stopped putting DRM on its games, etc.

I'm not following your logic here. GOG offers DRM-free games, and there is a market for that, but most people don't care as long as the product has value to them. GOG may be one of Steams biggest competitors, but they are still small compared to the titan that is Steam. The XBone was just a vocal minority getting their way as well. Only that minority was actually fighting for something good for everyone. There still were people that were vocal against the decision to change it. Project $10 just didn't add value for gamers, so no one took advantage of it. It didn't fail, it just didn't have value to the casual consumer. Ubisoft tried no DRM before they went overboard with Uplay. They can't make up their damn minds.

At best, these are PR moves to make it look like they listen to the customers, not actual financial decisions based on data.

Even that itself is a financial decision. They made the decision that, in the long run, its monetarily more beneficial to produce good PR than to continue a profitable practice.

You can say that literally about anything a business does, even turning on the lights during the day. That neither confirms or refutes my point. Once again, my point is that they are being reactionary, not making a calculated choice.

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.

How does it "hurt" you? Even if you planned on getting the game, and Steam doesn't host it, there's plenty of alternative outlets in which to get the game that takes as much time to find with Google as it does to find the game on Steam's storefront.

It hasn't "hurt" me yet, but there will be a point when it does if this is the path storefronts keep choosing to take. And if it's not on Steam, I'm almost certain to not buy it at this point. That's my decision as a consumer, because I have found value in keeping my games in Steam. If Steam is removing games based on moral outrage and not because of faulty products, I will get upset. I was upset.

Or maybe because Air Control was undefendable.

"Undefensible" is a subjective label. If a hundred thousand people signed a serious petition for Steam to put Air Control back on Steam, Valve would likely put the game back on Steam. Its about money, pure and simple.

Lets use an example of this kind of business tact outside of gaming. In the US, major billion-dollar pharmacies have been feeling pressured from activist groups to remove nicotine products from their stock. Some have complied, and why would they do that? Because they think its a good business decision in the long-run.

"indefensible" wasn't working as a word in Firefox when I typed it. Sorry.

If 100,000 people felt that Air Control was worth paying money for, then Air Control wasn't a bad game. 100,000 people are wanting to spend their money on it. This again doesn't refute my point, though I concede that money does play a part. Not news though.

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.

I read ahead just like you wanted me too, and it was stupid and insulting as I expected it to be based off the above sentence.

No, its fucking not, and you insult every victim of actual terrorism by making this comparison. Terrorists fucking murder people who disagree with them until people are too afraid to oppose the terrorists' agenda. Murder. Murder. Murder. You know what somebody who, say, doesn't like Chick-fil-a's donations does in response to that? They don't eat at Chick-fil-a. Its insulting to victims of actual terrorism acts to pretend that the exercise of basic consumer rights is on par to terrorism. Just in Iraq since 2003, hundreds of thousands, if not over a million people have been murdered by terrorists trying to push an agenda. Just this this week a hundred and fifty people in Pakistan, ninety percent of which were children, were murdered by a terrorist organization. Thats what terrorism is, not people bitching about a company making a decision they don't like on Facebook and Twitter and not buying a sandwich from a certain business.

Then your reading comprehension sucks. I said the same logic should be applied to them: Do not negotiate. I never said they were anything like murders, or that I was insulting actual victims.

Bringing Chic-fil-a into this, people shouldn't have been so uppity about it. The only thing I supported about their movement is that by paying for food there, your money would get spent on anti-homosexual funding. The rest of the outrage was overblown, and reeked of the same thing that happened to the Firefox CEO. At least in Chic-fil-a's case, actually supporting them did hurt unrelated people. Firefox CEO was turning someone into a second class citizen for having a different opinion that the majority. That's wrong to do to anyone.