It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
They should make an alternate game mode where you play as Jesus and run around shooting people with a super soaker, brightening their day and putting a smile on their face. Obviously there would be rainbows and color everywhere and the goal of shooting everyone would be the same.

I would buy the hell out of that.
avatar
Niggles: Who has actually been able to buy the game though?
avatar
PaterAlf: Nobody, because it isn't even released yet. And as I said before I doubt it ever will.
it got greenlight though. no alpha or beta? official site has no forums to speak of either hmmmm
low rated
In the year 2XXX when we are all dead and our children are brutally oppressed by the all-powerful feminist government, drinking Estrogenized water and eating only vegetables while the goosestepping feminazis rampage in the streets burning video game collections killing anyone they see who looks "masculine", when a bulldozer begins to knock down their house to build a new Holocaust museum, they will wonder "WHY DAD, WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP THIS!"

Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.
Post edited December 16, 2014 by Crosmando
avatar
Momo1991: I think many people fail to recognize the concept of becoming "inured"... What I am trying to say is that when we expose ourselves to a lot of any manner of experiences in life, they become "normal" or "accepted" and those things no longer have a sense of shock or of emotional value.

Hey, most women won't admit they enjoy porn (though it's been proven that women get turned on by all kinds of porn while men are much more selective), but watching too much porn may inure the watcher and therefore cause a certain level of ennui in basic love-making activities. This is true of violence as well - too many news stories about people being hurt or killed tends to make humans shut off their empathetic response and place news stories about violence in a kind of "it happens all the time, yawn" context.

So yeah, I have zero problem with games that mimic war or have a lot of violence - some role-playing isn't gonna turn normal people into killers and is in fact probably not a bad outlet...but this game doesn't sound like that was its intent. In fact it appears to be specifically designed to incite active hate and to motivate peeps to act those fantasies out in real life - or at least encourage hatred of "the other" (however that personally manifests).

Anyway, just my personal opinion - take it or leave it. I wasn't posting to have an argument or post links to facts ;-p
If it comes to GOG, you will be the first one to receive a gift ;)
high rated
I can't blame Steam for shutting this game down. Hatred seems to have been created to be controversial. In the wake of the many well-publicized school/mall/theater/etc. shootings that have taken place in the U.S. in the past few years, the game seems designed to mimic these public shootings. That is, of course, in poor taste, and will create bad publicity for any entity that publishes or sells Hatred. But Steam would have even bigger problems if it decided to sell the game. Hatred is sure to mimic real-life shootings to an uncomfortable degree. The fact of the matter is that many people will see it as a training program for real mass shootings.

When the Columbine school shootings happened over a decade ago, many people blames Marilyn Manson for creating music that supposedly encouraged the two shooters to go on their spree. Most people now view that claim as ridiculous, and the publicity surrounding claims that music/t.v./movies/games can actually make impressionable young people violent has waned, as it should. The connection between violent media and real life violence was always tenuous at best. But if its trailer is any indication, Hatred isn't just trying to be controversial; it's setting itself up to be the exact game that would persuade people to become shooters if such a thing is possible, or to be a mock up of that hypothetical game if such a thing is not. Either way, families who lose loved ones in mass shootings are going to take the Hatred devs (and possible whatever entity might have sold the game to a shooter) to court if it can be proven that a shooter played the game before his rampage. And the Hatred devs would not earn a lot of jury sympathy. I assume that Steam's legal team advised Steam to stay far away from Hatred, and Steam, not being staffed by complete idiots, complied.

I want to point out one more thing. A lot of gamers (including me) have very strong reactions against censorship, and I think that's healthy. But by refusing to sell Hatred, Steam (and perhaps GOG, too), is not censoring Hatred; it is refusing to sell a game that any of its customers can easily pick up on another web site (if and when the game comes out), and it is acting upon its instincts for self=preservation. Steam is a business. Let's face it. If Steam thought that it could profit by releasing Hatred without being sued or getting embroiled in a public relations nightmare, Steam would sell Hatred. I am also cynical about the Hatred devs. They couldn't have been blindsided by this decision. They knew it was at least a possibility that major sales outlets would refuse to sell their game, and they are surely prepared to use that publicity in one way or another. If nothing else, they'll sell a bunch of games to free speech supporters who would not have touched Hatred under other circumstances. However this shakes out, Hatred's studio will get more publicity for creating a lone-gunman-on-a-rampage game than an unknown studio would get from creating almost a game about literally any other subject.
Post edited December 16, 2014 by infinityeight
avatar
Pheace: Naturally, but the issue will have cooled down a lot by then. Maybe if a big youtuber makes a video after the sale or something.
avatar
Niggles: Who has actually been able to buy the game though?
And that was my point. Unless they're already selling, which I don't think they are, their notoriety may pass before they can really cash in on it.
avatar
infinityeight: That is, of course, in poor taste, and will create bad publicity for any entity that publishes or sells Hatred.
So is selling early access games that are effectively scams (Towns, Spacebase DF-9, StarForge, etcetera), but that hasn't stopped Steam from doing so anyway. I live in Colorado—I wasn't very far away when Columbine happened, and I actually knew someone who decided at the last minute not to go to the Batman showing in Aurora that ended in a shooting, so I have plenty of experience with these "think of the children" crusades, but the fact of the matter is that no one has any right to veto something simply for being in poor taste when there's no quality control otherwise. Plus it defeats the whole point of Greenlight if people aren't able to choose for themselves.

avatar
infinityeight: The connection between violent media and real life violence was always tenuous at best.
There's a connection, though. It just happens to be inversely proportional. I would never buy Hatred, but it deserves to be put out there if for no reason other than finally dispelling this ridiculous myth that violent entertainment somehow rubs off on us.
Not really surprising IMO. This game was all about the controversey, so if it HADN'T been pulled from Steam the whole controversey aspect would have been for naught. Now they keep their controversey and can use it to sell it to those few people willing to buy something like this.

A game so controversial no-one was willing to sell it.
avatar
PaterAlf: Nobody, because it isn't even released yet. And as I said before I doubt it ever will.
avatar
Niggles: it got greenlight though. no alpha or beta? official site has no forums to speak of either hmmmm
As far as I know it was only *put* on Greenlight (for a couple of hours), it didn't actually get greenlit.
avatar
infinityeight: That is, of course, in poor taste, and will create bad publicity for any entity that publishes or sells Hatred.
avatar
227: So is selling early access games that are effectively scams (Towns, Spacebase DF-9, StarForge, etcetera), but that hasn't stopped Steam from doing so anyway. I live in Colorado—I wasn't very far away when Columbine happened, and I actually knew someone who decided at the last minute not to go to the Batman showing in Aurora that ended in a shooting, so I have plenty of experience with these "think of the children" crusades, but the fact of the matter is that no one has any right to veto something simply for being in poor taste when there's no quality control otherwise. Plus it defeats the whole point of Greenlight if people aren't able to choose for themselves.
But people who buy early access games (or any games that they haven't researched extensively) know that they may not get what they were hoping for. It isn't Steam's fault if a dev doesn't come through with a solid, finished game.

And Steam (I presume) isn't vetoing Hatred because it's in poor taste. It's vetoing the game because there could be serious repercussions (legal and PR) for it if it sells Hatred. Steam is a corporation that is trying to make a profit. It has made no pretensions about trying to bring the widest selection of games to as many people as possible. If that were true, it would give games away. I'm not a big pro-business person (and I do believe that businesses should shoulder some moral responsibility), but I can't blame a business for not actively courting lawsuits.
low rated
Free outrage for all! Hate the Polish Nazis and their mind-controlling vidya garms!
avatar
infinityeight: But people who buy early access games (or any games that they haven't researched extensively) know that they may not get what they were hoping for. It isn't Steam's fault if a dev doesn't come through with a solid, finished game.
But it is their fault if a game is violent? Steam either holds itself responsible for the content it provides or it doesn't. They don't get to have it both ways.

avatar
infinityeight: And Steam (I presume) isn't vetoing Hatred because it's in poor taste. It's vetoing the game because there could be serious repercussions (legal and PR) for it if it sells Hatred.
Have Netflix or Blockbuster ever been in legal trouble for selling/renting violent movies? Is there any precedent for this whatsoever?
Too much violence
avatar
227: Have Netflix or Blockbuster ever been in legal trouble for selling/renting violent movies? Is there any precedent for this whatsoever?
Does it matter? Any given store has the right to refuse selling any given product. Hell, GOG has opted to refuse to sell a fair few, including games like Thomas was Alone. It feels a little hypocritical to criticize Steam for what GOG has been doing all the time (and yes, GOG too has an admission system in form of wishlist, just not automated)
I really doubt Steam pulled the game due to fear of litigation. It's much more likely that they didn't want this crap on their service. Hopefully, being Polish themselves, the team at GoG won't want to touch anything by supporters of Polska Liga Obrony.