Valve Pulls Controversial Game Hatred from Greenlight - Update

[Doom972]

It really was a weird decision. I'm glad to see that Valve are able to recognize a mistake, fix it, and apologize.

 

[Erttheking]

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.

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

 

[Lightknight]

Hmm, this represents a crucial turning point that Steam almost made. In which they begin morally curating the content they allow rather than keeping the platform an open market where possible.

Good on Gabe for realizing the mistake and realigning them with their company's focus. Not that I care or will ever play this game. But should a controversial game ever arise that I do want to play, I want the open market to at least permit it. What's interesting is that Steam's nigh-monopoly on computer gaming basically gives it not just banning power but legitimate censorship power. Most retailers like Target banning something simply allows you to walk across the street and get something else. But steam is really the only place people get video games in mass so it being banned there leads to people traveling down dark alley ways lined with gargoyles and shadows.

I still want quality control though. Just not morality patrol.

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.

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

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

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Ill say the same thing i said about Apple removing Papers, Please.

Do they have a legal right to do this? Of course.

Should they have a legal right to do this? In my opinion - no.

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

 

[Don Incognito]

Steam is PC games store, therefore it is expect that it sells PC games and not android games. When it fails to sell PC games based on its personal beliefs it is censorship. When it fails to sell Android games it is because Steam is not an Android store.

That is absolutely, completely, 100% wrong definition of censorship.

If I provide product by manufacturer A at my office, but I don't provide a competing product by manufacturer B, I am NOT CENSORING manufacturer B. I have made a business decision.

Good heavens, can we please stop using words to mean what we want them to mean?

 

[Something Amyss]

That might be true if there was any sort of real campaign to have Hatred removed.

More to the point, and this is the part Signa clipped in his quote mine:

This isn't a slippery slope, as the store has always been the final arbiter of its stock.

So yeah.

This is not a new thing. This is not even something happening more frequently nowadays. This is a very, very old power marketplaces have had for as long as the concept of the free market has existed.

Granted, I'm pretty sure that's why I was quote mined. The argument of a slippery slope doesn't hold up very well when compared to, you know...reality and stuff.

I mean, I take your point that there was no campaign and whatnot, but I don't think we even need to go that far.

Side note: if book stores don't sell my novel, I'm going to start screaming censorship at the top of my lungs.

The craziest part is this. No one knows why Valve actually took the game down.

Facts have long been irrelevant in gamer outrage. The craziest part is, when we're portrayed as reactionary and childish, we get even more reactionary and childish. But this in itself should be proof of why people feel that way.


The only thing I would say is that two games don't make a pattern. [/quote]

Two games being optionally not stocked, one with no reason disclosed, in a society where there are tons of ways to access both games still.

Anyway, I don't give a damn whether this game is stocked or not. If they stock it, I won't buy it. IF they don't stock it, I won't buy it (not that I could). I just think it's so bizarre that all of a sudden, stores have to stock certain games or it's some Orwellian future inbound.

If someone was trying to get it banned, or something to that effect, that'd be one thing.

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

Because it was only at that point, on page four of like the fourth topic on the matter, that respect flew out the window.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I call it where I see it and when I have the strength to do it.

 

[Grahav]

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.

Thanks! I will make sure to do that

About a store wanting or not wanting to sell a piece of artistic media, well, that is their right. Either because the seller think something is shit or because he thinks it will hurt his bussiness. Hardcore porn games are pretty weird to have in display in all family stores. It would be weird to sell Rapelay and similar games (there is more like it) in something that is not a porn shop.

I don't blame the censorship on Valve (just business). I blame it on the groups who don't like to deprive everyone of the game. Making use of power to deprive other people of it, instead of debating, is censorship.

About Hatred: What I think that rustles the people's jimmies is the lack of veils and masks to the act of torture and murder. It is not painted as cartoonish like Tom & Jerry or it has cute points above the enemies heads. It is not black comedy, social commentary, parody a cause, a heroic hero doing their job or anything else.

It is the act of murder because you don't want that to exist, period. In a way it is rather humanistic (in the most vile aspect of humanity) because the protagonist has a (twisted) connection with the people he murders. Different of the cannibalistic approach of killing for xp points or gold (lives have the same value as chattle in these cases), or because they are a barrier to your objective (dust to be swept).

That said, research showed that violence and revenge are among the stuff that produces endorfine so killing for pleasure and seeing the people you hate getting screwed is a thing. Bad thing.

It would be nice if you could customize the protagonist to anything and set out killing just what you want

"My name is not important. What is important is what I'm going to do... I just fuckin' hate this world. And the (humans/men/women/whites/blacks/republicans/commies/nazies/jews/hippies/SJWs/Gamergaters/furries/gays/heteros/normals/freaks/rich/poor/civilians/soldiers/criminal/cops/athesits/christians/muslims/populars/nerds/feminists/MRAs...) feasting on its carcass."

All of these have hatred bonds in both directions.

 

[Krantos]

I actually disagree with Gabe on this one. Is the dev free to make whatever they want? Yes, of course.

However, Hatred is so repugnant, repulsive, and simply unnecessary i feel that Steam is tarnished for having it available.
I think it is a mistake to allow the game back on the store.

But. I recognize that Valve is free to sell or not sell whatever they want. That is, and should be, their right. I don't agree with the way they chose to exercise it in this instance, but they still have it.

Personally, I'm more horrified that the game is getting greenlit so easily. I had hoped that gamers would swat this down as the putrid snuff porn that it is. The fact that it, instead, is getting so much support makes me think less of the community as a whole.

 

[Orange12345]

Last Week: "Target listened to their customers concerns and acted on them"

This Week: "Valve is being forced to sell something they don't want to"

stay classy internet

 

[ender1200]

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.

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

Considering the latest development I won't be suprised if somone in valves middle menegment got a sreious lecture from Gabe over this.
I guess that Valve's ideal for steam is to be a platform where every game is welcome. It makes sense seeing as they have a near defacto monopoly on online games sale.

Personally i don't care either way about this game. Let it be on steam or let them refues to curate it in disguast (Or fear of political reprecautions). I won't bother to play it myself, and yet I know about worse games existing out there.

 

[Ishigami]

Good to see Gabe listening to reason.
It was by all means a hastily and poorly made decision.

Last Week: "Target listened to their customers concerns and acted on them"

This Week: "Valve is being forced to sell something they don't want to"

stay classy internet

Except Valve isn't forced. I would very much appreciate a JimQuisition on the wrong use or image of ?forced? in the same way as ?censorship?.
Stay classy Orange?

 

[Kenjitsuka]

With all the unfinished crap STEAM has on there for big bucks, it's stupid to pull this.
You can argue about taste all you want, but as long as Manhunt and the Postal games are on... it would be hypocritical to pull this.
Because this basically IS Postal...

Glad Valve put it back on!

 

[VoidWanderer]

I have been thinking about this for days. And yes, the game is pandering to those who care only for violence, with no moral code. Can I point out that there is already a game similar to this? It's called Grand Theft Auto.

Didn't like that example? How about Mortal Kombat? Gratuitous violence with very little tying it together.

I know that this well get people up in arms, but does this invalidate my point? Do you remember the first time GTA came out, the public outrage over the lack of limits in the game, where you can kill anyone if you want.

While, yes, we should censor ourselves as gamers, but censoring a game based around violence, seems hypocritical doesn't it?

 

[Cecilo]

I have been thinking about this for days. And yes, the game is pandering to those who care only for violence, with no moral code. Can I point out that there is already a game similar to this? It's called Grand Theft Auto.

Didn't like that example? How about Mortal Kombat? Gratuitous violence with very little tying it together.

I know that this well get people up in arms, but does this invalidate my point? Do you remember the first time GTA came out, the public outrage over the lack of limits in the game, where you can kill anyone if you want.

While, yes, we should censor ourselves as gamers, but censoring a game based around violence, seems hypocritical doesn't it?

I'll gladly start censoring myself when books, movies, tv, and every other medium stops doing the same. Human Centipede 1 and 2 exist, Saw exists, various horribly graphic books exist. I don't see any difference other than the Media and moral police scare of "But.. but pressing buttons will make people more likely to commit crimes!"

Edit: I really. Don't understand people anymore, for years we argued and fought for the right for games to be considered art, and now that we are here, people are going "Fuck it. We don't like certain stuff, remove it." Defeating the entire purpose of the it's art, it's protected fight.

 

[CaitSeith]

Well. This just gets more interesting by the minute. One more victory for videogames evolution? (I guess?) I really don't care about the game itself (too disturbing for my taste), but what it's happening in the gaming community and the industry because of it is very fascinating.

EDIT: I'm talking about Valve putting Hatred back on Greenlight.

 

[Orange12345]

Good to see Gabe listening to reason.
It was by all means a hastily and poorly made decision.

Last Week: "Target listened to their customers concerns and acted on them"

This Week: "Valve is being forced to sell something they don't want to"

stay classy internet

Except Valve isn't forced. I would very much appreciate a JimQuisition on the wrong use or image of ?forced? in the same way as ?censorship?.
Stay classy Orange?

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.

 

[GrumbleGrump]

I have been thinking about this for days. And yes, the game is pandering to those who care only for violence, with no moral code. Can I point out that there is already a game similar to this? It's called Grand Theft Auto.

Didn't like that example? How about Mortal Kombat? Gratuitous violence with very little tying it together.

I know that this well get people up in arms, but does this invalidate my point? Do you remember the first time GTA came out, the public outrage over the lack of limits in the game, where you can kill anyone if you want.

While, yes, we should censor ourselves as gamers, but censoring a game based around violence, seems hypocritical doesn't it?

Naw man. Mortal Kombat requires a degree of skill. This apparently doesn't.

Well, it's back on Steam. Good, now we can buy it, play it, realize it's probably absolutely boring and realize the visual is the only thing going for it.

Y'know, probably.

 

[CaitSeith]

Good to see Gabe listening to reason.
It was by all means a hastily and poorly made decision.

Last Week: "Target listened to their customers concerns and acted on them"

This Week: "Valve is being forced to sell something they don't want to"

stay classy internet

Except Valve isn't forced. I would very much appreciate a JimQuisition on the wrong use or image of ?forced? in the same way as ?censorship?.
Stay classy Orange?

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.

Both of them were business decisions (I assume. There has been no 100% confirmed info of what happened backdoors)

 

[CaitSeith]

I have been thinking about this for days. And yes, the game is pandering to those who care only for violence, with no moral code. Can I point out that there is already a game similar to this? It's called Grand Theft Auto.

Didn't like that example? How about Mortal Kombat? Gratuitous violence with very little tying it together.

I know that this well get people up in arms, but does this invalidate my point? Do you remember the first time GTA came out, the public outrage over the lack of limits in the game, where you can kill anyone if you want.

While, yes, we should censor ourselves as gamers, but censoring a game based around violence, seems hypocritical doesn't it?

I'll gladly start censoring myself when books, movies, tv, and every other medium stops doing the same. Human Centipede 1 and 2 exist, Saw exists, various horribly graphic books exist. I don't see any difference other than the Media and moral police scare of "But.. but pressing buttons will make people more likely to commit crimes!"

Edit: I really. Don't understand people anymore, for years we argued and fought for the right for games to be considered art, and now that we are here, people are going "Fuck it. We don't like certain stuff, remove it." Defeating the entire purpose of the it's art, it's protected fight.

You have to inspect more closely which people say what. There are more and more gamers each year, with more diverse opinions than those 5 or 10 years ago.