To be fair, the game could play like crap and be crap. If that turned out to be the case, I'd support GoG in not releasing it. The game should be considered on its merits as a game, not based on any social agenda.

I find your logic questionable. I don't think we'll see the kind of player exodus you're hoping for, but that's irrelevant, because you're right about one thing... this is very much about freedom.

But not yours.

I love how all the same bogus libertarian wannabes who are always whining about their rights and freedoms are invariably eager to run roughshod over the rights and freedoms of others.

Get over yourselves. GOG is not a government agency. It's not even a publicly traded company. As a private company GOG has an ABSOLUTE PROPRIETARY RIGHT to control what content is made available on their site.

This has nothing to do with YOUR rights and freedoms, it's about THEIR'S. If you can't respect that it's just one more good reason to bid you adieu now.

So in other words, the determination of the game's quality should be purely objective? I don't think there's exactly a shortage of people in the community who have already pointed that out why that's not really possible, but to recap, all determinations of a game's quality are determined by the subjective tastes and criteria of each person; granted, a person should try to apply their criteria to the game objectively, and trying to examine the merits of one's own merits is important, but inherently subjective criteria as premises means that any conclusion about the game is inherently subjective. Being purely objective would forestall any evaluation of quality of a game beyond whether or not it has any number of features that allow it to function, and even the basics of 'fun' could never be considered.

That's the worst kind of intellectual rationalization. Freedom cannot exist if we don't recognize and respect one another's rights. That INCLUDES property rights. Again... GOG is not a government agency. Their decision to carry, or not to carry, specific content is not an attack on anyone's freedom.

Attempts to bully someone out of asserting their property rights may fall within your right to free expression, but to pretend you are doing it in the name of freedom is beyond contempt.

So freedom can't exist if people are taking a stand against censorship? Censorship is against freedom. And nobody is trying to bully someone into doing anything. Nobody is trying to take away the rights of the stores to do whatever they want here. Are you delusional? Judging a store to be disgusting because they stand for censorship does not = bullying. Not wanting to support a store anymore because they support censorship does not = bullying.

It's not censorship, you moron. It's only censorship if it's being instituted by force of law.

There can be censorship without the government involved. Media outlets are capable of taking part in censorship due their power over people, Sir Moron, Knight Of The Twit Table. Just because media outlets aren't as effective as the government when it comes to censoring doesn't mean only the government can censor... Wikipedia agrees with me too.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

If an angry mob of peasants decides books are evil and then burns every book in their village, that is not censorship because the law wasn't involved.... <- YEAH OKAY, what load of bullshit. You said my logic is "questionable" but you shouldn't be talking because your logic is garbage.

A position that has been challenged and upheld as legal.

Freedom cuts both ways.

But beyond that, to compare a small closely held company like GOG to a huge, publicly traded multinational is disingenuous at best. Just plain stupid at worst.

Now... if you want to put forward a proposal limiting the civil rights of publicly traded companies on the grounds that their ownership is no longer private an their assets are protected by the public I'd be interested to hear what you say. I don't think it's really possible to do legally, but I'll at least listen.

But if you expect anyone who REALLY cares about FREEDOM to support your right to sell a video game, or anything else, over the objection of a small private business you must be nuts.

Challenged by who and upheld as legal by who? And it doesn't matter if something is legal if it's wrong. And 9 times out of 10, what is "legal" is simply what serves the corporations best. Not what is right.

Someone who really cares about freedom hates censorship. And again, you are hallucinating or some shit. Did you take your meds? I never said, a media outlet should be forced to sell a game. Stop putting forth a straw man argument. Beat me with logic....oh wait...you can't....

In my mind, the only logical reason GOG wouldn't sell Hatred, besides "bad taste", would be fear of backlash (social media and "journalists")

But if GOG doesn't sell Hatred, there will be backlash too.

Maybe you've heard of the supreme court? Miami Herald vs. Tornillo would make a good start, but there are a number of times editorial control of corporate media has been upheld. Of course anyone who believes in Freedom of the Press would take that as read without a citation.

But that's not really relevant.

You're not asserting a logical argument. You're asserting a moral one. You're asserting that GOG is attacking your freedom if they don't sell hate. I am asserting that it is YOU who are failing to respect GOGs freedom to run their privately held business (whose owners still have REAL skin in the game and whose employees that depend on them to take prudent risks) in the way they feel is right.

That is not a logical argument. It's a moral one. I simply don't buy your contention that GOG has some kind of moral obligation to sell a murder simulator if they don't want to, be it because they fear public backlash, government censorship (which does exist in markets that GOG serves), or just plain bad press; or be it because it simply defies their moral and/or religious sensibilities.

Your freedom is not more important than theirs.

Your freedom stops at the end of MY nose. You have no right to assert control over me or my property.

This website is someone's PROPERTY.

You are quite right that there are many bad laws on the books. They force me to put political ads I don't support on my billboards, they tell me what color I can paint my house, what kind of toilet I can buy, and how big my windows can be. They tell me where I can build my business and even who I can and can't hire.

Yes... There are many examples on the books of your idea of "freedom", and they are bad laws.

"You're not asserting a logical argument. You're asserting a moral one. You're asserting that GOG is attacking your freedom if they don't sell hate. I am asserting that it is YOU who are failing to respect GOGs freedom to run their privately held business whose owners still have REAL skin in the game (and employees that depend on them) in the way they feel is right."
If GOG doesn't sell Hatred, then they are supporting censorship. < - Logic. And censorship not only attacks my freedom but the freedom for everyone else too so this isn't just about me. <- Logic. And censorship can be used as a dangerous weapon by malevolent people who want to destroy freedom. <- Logic. Just open a history book and you'll see this. So those who truly love freedom hate censorship.<- Logic. So if a store supports censorship then that is a misuse of freedom and I find it disgusting. <- Morals. Where is it written that in order to love freedom, I have to love every despicable act done due to people having the freedom to do what they want to do? I'm not failing to respect anyone's freedom. I simply have no respect for actions that support censorship. Not respecting someone's actions = not respecting their freedom is the product of a retarded mind.

" Your freedom is not more important than theirs. "
Who said my freedom is more important than theirs?

"Your freedom stops at the end of MY nose."
Good, I wouldn't want it any other way because the same freedom benefits me too. It prevents control freaks from turning me into a puppet with strings attached.

"You have no right to assert control over me or my property, and you are quite right that there are many bad laws on the books that do this. "
No shit, Sherlock. I never said I have the right to control you or your property but I have the right to judge you as a idiot, for example. I also have a right to see you as disgusting or evil and not want to do business with you. I have the right to say you are being immoral for supporting censorship. That is freedom of speech. Just like I have the right to judge GOG and not do business with them anymore if I don't want to. Freedom cuts both ways... But hopefully, they will do the moral thing, take a stand against censorship, be reasonable and sell Hatred.

I grow tired of debating with you because all you seem to do is unleash straw man after straw man, trying to make it look like, I believe only I should have freedom and nobody else should but that is not the case.

I dont like political correction AT ALL, fiction agressive products are nice, is good to wake up people feelings, world is not a cottom cloud in a blue sky... we need correct things, and bad things... in fiction... I never be a bad person for playing violent videogames, or a cheesy person for seeing romantic comedies...

It is TIRING all this ultraconservative Jack Thompson BS that is "trendy" now on "gaming"...

I never kill people with my car and I love carmadeggon, i never had any simple bill in years driving... so all those "save the children and the pixels! people are wannabe PRs trying to get a job, cash, and relevance..."