Posted December 17, 2014
v o i d | flower
Gloomy User
Registered: Mar 2010
From United States
@('_')@
Registered: Sep 2012
From United States
Posted December 17, 2014
Censorship only requires authority over a particular medium, and banning or restrictions based upon moral considerations- if standard ratings boards for movies etc were wholly private money making entities instead of (mainly) government run bodies they'd still be censor boards enforcing morality. GOG deciding not to stock games due to technical issues or thinking they will not appeal or aren't good enough is not a moral issue. Steam has a monopolist position which dictates profitability to a very large extent in the PC games market- unless you're minecraft/ Blizzard/ EA, and 99%+ chance is you aren't- and which they actively work to enhance every chance they get, they have authority over the PC game space in much the same way MS has authority over the PC OS space. All the exclusive steam key resellers that make up a large share of the supposedly 30% of the market Valve has not cornered have their morality actively dictated by Valve- no steam keys generated, no sales from those sites. As such Valve and Steam are in a signifcantly different position from something like The Warehouse or Target deciding not to stock GTAV as those two places have no actual authority over the market.
It also raises the question of what people would call something like Facebook banning breast feeding pictures or Microsift deciding that Windows would no longer play R18 games/ videos. Obviously not censorship despite them making moral decisions to limit access, because apparently only governments and political groups and the like can do that- and of course you can always switch to Linux/ Myspace.
Meh, if Valve decided to eat babies people would defend them with special pleading- the Lord our Gabe reducing over population!
I have zero interest at all in Hatred.
@('_')@
Registered: Sep 2012
From United States
Posted December 17, 2014
low rated
WTF. Are the Hatred guys trying to troll Valve?
v o i d | flower
Gloomy User
Registered: Mar 2010
From United States
Posted December 17, 2014
Actually, speaking with one on their forum, they don't know either! LOL!
Valve had a change of heart, all praise be to thee, GABEN
http://pixelattacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/gaben.png
Amen.
Valve had a change of heart, all praise be to thee, GABEN
http://pixelattacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/gaben.png
Amen.
@('_')@
Registered: Sep 2012
From United States
Posted December 17, 2014
low rated
Valve had a change of heart, all praise be to thee, GABEN
http://pixelattacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/gaben.png
Amen.
This is great news.
v o i d | flower
Gloomy User
Registered: Mar 2010
From United States
Posted December 17, 2014
I'm hearing it was pulled because the rules state you need an ESRB rating, which Hatred lacked.
Plumb
bent over
Registered: Jan 2010
From United States
Fictionvision
Registered: Jul 2012
From United States
Posted December 17, 2014
Garrison72
New User
Registered: Apr 2010
From United States
Posted December 17, 2014
As it should be. Valve put themselves in a no win situation by removing it.
Kaeoschassis
Soft spots
Registered: May 2013
From United Kingdom
Posted December 17, 2014
high rated
Difficult one. On the whole I think it's probably a good thing from Valve's point of view that they put it back up, assuming that's what they did. Something tells me they were going to have the wrath of the ever-furious internet come down on them no matter what they did, though.
When it comes down to it, though, steam is Valve's storefront and they can sell or not sell whatever they please. No store or publisher is ever under any obligation to sell anything for you. If one place won't sell your game, you can always try selling it somewhere else. If NOWHERE will sell your game... well, then that raises some interesting questions, doesn't it?
From a business perspective, Valve almost certainly made a mistake taking it down in the first place - unless it really did breach some meaningful element of their terms of use, of course, which I somehow doubt. But did they do anything legally or morally wrong? I don't really see that they did, personally.
And on the matter of defining censorship? People are free to create absolutely anything they please (well, possibly excluding building bombs in your garden shed, I suppose...), but nobody is ever under any obligation to sell that product for them, legal, moral or otherwise. To use an example I hope is more relevant than some I've read lately, say you write a book, you like it, and you want to sell it. Say you take it to your local branch of a moderately influential bookstore and ask them if they'll sell it for you. If they tell you that no, it's just no good,they're not going to sell it, are they censoring you? I would argue they are not, your freedom of speech is in no way being violated.
Let's say they tell you they won't sell it because they are personally offended by the content. Are they censoring you? I would again argue they aren't - because you are still free to write and say these things, and one store not stocking the book doesn't mean people are being denied access to it.
Now let's say you take it to several stores, and none of them want to sell it. Are you being censored now? That's a harder one, isn't it? I can see a definite argument that you are - you've created something and multiple media outlets are refusing to sell it, effectively making it more difficult for potential customers to buy it. But again, each individual store is not responsible for censoring you - they're still, as individual stores, not legally or morally obligated to sell any one work, they can choose to sell or not sell whatever they please, based on whatever parameters they please - since it's their store, that's their right, and we're all about ensuring that rights aren't being breached here, aren't we?
When it comes down to it, if you create something and nobody wants to sell it for you, then you've obviously created something that people are unhappy or uncomfortable with selling. It may be that the work you've created is just controversial, and at the end of the day controversy is no bad thing. Sometimes it's very necessary. Sometimes.
If that's the case, though, you're still free to fight to get that work out there, to get it into people's hands. Self publish if necessary. Go door to door selling it by hand if you have to. It's not easy, at all, and you might feel it's not fair. And perhaps it's not fair. But your right to create whatever you please is just that, and it ends there. You cannot force anybody to sell anything for you, that isn't something you're automatically entitled to. You cannot take away the rights of a store-owner to sell or not sell your product in order to enforce your own right of free speech.
Ultimately, it's a difficult topic. But what it comes down to, as I see it, is this. You're free to say whatever you please. Nobody is obligated to give you a megaphone, though.
When it comes down to it, though, steam is Valve's storefront and they can sell or not sell whatever they please. No store or publisher is ever under any obligation to sell anything for you. If one place won't sell your game, you can always try selling it somewhere else. If NOWHERE will sell your game... well, then that raises some interesting questions, doesn't it?
From a business perspective, Valve almost certainly made a mistake taking it down in the first place - unless it really did breach some meaningful element of their terms of use, of course, which I somehow doubt. But did they do anything legally or morally wrong? I don't really see that they did, personally.
And on the matter of defining censorship? People are free to create absolutely anything they please (well, possibly excluding building bombs in your garden shed, I suppose...), but nobody is ever under any obligation to sell that product for them, legal, moral or otherwise. To use an example I hope is more relevant than some I've read lately, say you write a book, you like it, and you want to sell it. Say you take it to your local branch of a moderately influential bookstore and ask them if they'll sell it for you. If they tell you that no, it's just no good,they're not going to sell it, are they censoring you? I would argue they are not, your freedom of speech is in no way being violated.
Let's say they tell you they won't sell it because they are personally offended by the content. Are they censoring you? I would again argue they aren't - because you are still free to write and say these things, and one store not stocking the book doesn't mean people are being denied access to it.
Now let's say you take it to several stores, and none of them want to sell it. Are you being censored now? That's a harder one, isn't it? I can see a definite argument that you are - you've created something and multiple media outlets are refusing to sell it, effectively making it more difficult for potential customers to buy it. But again, each individual store is not responsible for censoring you - they're still, as individual stores, not legally or morally obligated to sell any one work, they can choose to sell or not sell whatever they please, based on whatever parameters they please - since it's their store, that's their right, and we're all about ensuring that rights aren't being breached here, aren't we?
When it comes down to it, if you create something and nobody wants to sell it for you, then you've obviously created something that people are unhappy or uncomfortable with selling. It may be that the work you've created is just controversial, and at the end of the day controversy is no bad thing. Sometimes it's very necessary. Sometimes.
If that's the case, though, you're still free to fight to get that work out there, to get it into people's hands. Self publish if necessary. Go door to door selling it by hand if you have to. It's not easy, at all, and you might feel it's not fair. And perhaps it's not fair. But your right to create whatever you please is just that, and it ends there. You cannot force anybody to sell anything for you, that isn't something you're automatically entitled to. You cannot take away the rights of a store-owner to sell or not sell your product in order to enforce your own right of free speech.
Ultimately, it's a difficult topic. But what it comes down to, as I see it, is this. You're free to say whatever you please. Nobody is obligated to give you a megaphone, though.
@('_')@
Registered: Sep 2012
From United States
Posted December 17, 2014
low rated
When it comes down to it, though, steam is Valve's storefront and they can sell or not sell whatever they please. No store or publisher is ever under any obligation to sell anything for you. If one place won't sell your game, you can always try selling it somewhere else. If NOWHERE will sell your game... well, then that raises some interesting questions, doesn't it?
From a business perspective, Valve almost certainly made a mistake taking it down in the first place - unless it really did breach some meaningful element of their terms of use, of course, which I somehow doubt. But did they do anything legally or morally wrong? I don't really see that they did, personally.
And on the matter of defining censorship? People are free to create absolutely anything they please (well, possibly excluding building bombs in your garden shed, I suppose...), but nobody is ever under any obligation to sell that product for them, legal, moral or otherwise. To use an example I hope is more relevant than some I've read lately, say you write a book, you like it, and you want to sell it. Say you take it to your local branch of a moderately influential bookstore and ask them if they'll sell it for you. If they tell you that no, it's just no good,they're not going to sell it, are they censoring you? I would argue they are not, your freedom of speech is in no way being violated.
Let's say they tell you they won't sell it because they are personally offended by the content. Are they censoring you? I would again argue they aren't - because you are still free to write and say these things, and one store not stocking the book doesn't mean people are being denied access to it.
Now let's say you take it to several stores, and none of them want to sell it. Are you being censored now? That's a harder one, isn't it? I can see a definite argument that you are - you've created something and multiple media outlets are refusing to sell it, effectively making it more difficult for potential customers to buy it. But again, each individual store is not responsible for censoring you - they're still, as individual stores, not legally or morally obligated to sell any one work, they can choose to sell or not sell whatever they please, based on whatever parameters they please - since it's their store, that's their right, and we're all about ensuring that rights aren't being breached here, aren't we?
When it comes down to it, if you create something and nobody wants to sell it for you, then you've obviously created something that people are unhappy or uncomfortable with selling. It may be that the work you've created is just controversial, and at the end of the day controversy is no bad thing. Sometimes it's very necessary. Sometimes.
If that's the case, though, you're still free to fight to get that work out there, to get it into people's hands. Self publish if necessary. Go door to door selling it by hand if you have to. It's not easy, at all, and you might feel it's not fair. And perhaps it's not fair. But your right to create whatever you please is just that, and it ends there. You cannot force anybody to sell anything for you, that isn't something you're automatically entitled to. You cannot take away the rights of a store-owner to sell or not sell your product in order to enforce your own right of free speech.
Ultimately, it's a difficult topic. But what it comes down to, as I see it, is this. You're free to say whatever you please. Nobody is obligated to give you a megaphone, though.
From a moral point of view, stores should never refuse to sell your product due to "feelings" and only refuse to sell a product for sane practical reasons. But what about their freedom? Fuck their freedom to behave like the thought police. Stores have a responsibility to ensure we live in a society that upholds the freedom of speech. The freedom to take part in censorship shouldn't exist. For the same reason, people don't have the freedom to run around and assault people on the streets. If you don't like that then don't become the owner of a store. It's as simple as that. And if you don't want to be responsible for children, never have kids. If you want all the freedom that you can get, then don't put yourself in a position where you are responsible for anything. In your post, you are also arguing based on your own definition of censorship, not the real definition of censorship.
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, corporations or other groups or institutions. You can't just make up your own definition of censorship and then say, if a store rejects a product because of "feelings" it's not censorship. That is insane.
I'm not saying people are entitled to having other people sell products for them. I'm saying people are entitled to not have their products rejected by stores because of "feelings". There is a difference because a person is a person and a person doesn't have the same responsibilities as a store. Letting free speech pass through an access point(a store) is totally different have someone giving someone else a megaphone. A store selling a product for someone or some publisher is not a free hand out.
Yes, freedom of speech is more important than the freedom to take part in censorship. And defending the right for petty childish ignorant over sensitive people who only care about money(the majority of humanity) to be thought police is pure insanity. Do you know how important freedom of speech is? A lot more important than some asshat's right to play god emperor with his store... If I had it my way, stores would not have the right to take part in censorship because the free smooth flow of information is one of the best things we have right now. For example, look at how the internet has benefited us so far... Why do you think countries like North Korea don't let their citizens access the internet... And just so you know, if one store refuses to sell a product because of "feelings", other stores are probably doing the same so I highly doubt, a product could only be banned from one store. So you underestimate the level of censorship that could result from stores taking part in censorship. What makes you think, you can always just go to another store? What if the other store refused to sell the product too because of "feelings"? What if you live somewhere that only has one store? A lot of people live in areas where there is only one store that sells video games, for example. In the USA's south and south west, there are areas where the only store that sells music, DVDs, video games etc is Walmart. They could drive for hours and go to another store but it would cost these people lots of time and gas money. Walmart has an insane amount of power in the USA. If Walmart banned a game, it would make a huge difference. Because of Walmart, the Monolith devs had to make a censored version of Blood just for them or miss out on ton's of money because so many Americans are Walmart shoppers... And then imagine if Walmart and Amazon.com banned a product or demanded a censored version..
Post edited December 17, 2014 by monkeydelarge
v o i d | flower
Gloomy User
Registered: Mar 2010
From United States
Posted December 17, 2014
https://scontent-b-sin.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/10830470_387264774774186_2167759126562716439_o.jpg
The big man himself put it back up. From the dev's facebook.
The big man himself put it back up. From the dev's facebook.
Trilarion
New User
Registered: Jul 2010
From Germany
Posted December 17, 2014
Yes, Steam is full of shovelware, but then maybe someone out there likes this shovelware. The costs of offering just another game aren't so great. So my standards here are a but lower and I agree with Steams turnaround. Every game that sells a few copies is worth to be on Steam or GOG or anywhere else. But (there is always one) a very buggy/unfinished/unplayable kind of game should be taken down and the advertisement space on the page should be proportional to the selling success.
So in case it is a very boring but playable game it will just be another number in the catalogue nobody is really paying any attention to anyways. But you could.
My impression is that GOG's approach is kind of balanced. They could though be a bit faster and a bit more tolerant and a bit more selective in advertising new games (i.e. featuring games they think have big potential much more and games that have only small potential less).
So in case it is a very boring but playable game it will just be another number in the catalogue nobody is really paying any attention to anyways. But you could.
My impression is that GOG's approach is kind of balanced. They could though be a bit faster and a bit more tolerant and a bit more selective in advertising new games (i.e. featuring games they think have big potential much more and games that have only small potential less).
Post edited December 17, 2014 by Trilarion
@('_')@
Registered: Sep 2012
From United States
Posted December 17, 2014
low rated
The big man himself put it back up. From the dev's facebook.
Post edited December 17, 2014 by monkeydelarge
lemuria
One frag left
Registered: Apr 2012
From Turkey
Posted December 17, 2014
The big man himself put it back up. From the dev's facebook.