This is the greatest argument against always-on DRM that I've ever seen.

I wasn't going for the always-online-DRM rant thing, but now that you mention it.... Yes it actually is a good argument... I guess i was accidentally clever :P

Well, it's not that I'm looking forward to the game itself. It seems to be a glorification of violence for its own sake, made as realistic and explicit as possible. That's not something I would personally enjoy. On the other hand, I've had tremendous amounts of fun with Postal 2, but then that is much more cartoony in its approach. I guess what I'm trying to say is that fictionalized violence can be both entertaining and educational without diminishing your humanity, but that's not to say that I think anything goes. It's just hard to define where the line is, and when it is crossed.

I rather have this as a video game than some ahole doing this in real life.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-12-15-controversial-mass-murdering-game-hatred-appears-on-steam-greenlight?utm_source=eurogamer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=net-daily

So, the dev is happy with the response from Steam Customers, they will continue with the games production, but just wont sell it on Steam

I would buy the game for this reason alone, I hate the fact that Steam could kill a games development with a stance like this, so fuck Steam, I will buy this game at release on GOG or wherever it winds up.

Consider this: I'd be more worried about people going on equally brutal killing sprees in games as long as they are convinced that their victims are "evil". Cold-blooded murder of the ostensibly "innocent" is something a lot more clear-cut; you'll have people either NOT doing so out of disgust or engaging in it for the transgressiveness. People playing such a game will almost certainly know that what they are making their character do is EVIL and something they would neither want themselves or anyone else to do IRL. Of course, instead of extrapolating that killing is, in general, a BAD thing (even if you can find excuses, justify it), an extremely small subset of humanity may conclude the opposite - that justifications were an unnecessary crutch...

As long as the game is decent, I'll probably give it a go. I like to use games for emotional and intellectual sight-seeing. If the game can show me something new and memorable, I'll consider it money well spent.

As long as GOG picks it up, it will be a huge surge in attention for them. They're number 2 in digital gaming sales and number 1 has refused to pick the title up - it'll be a win for all of us.

Ordinarily, you'd be right. However, the devs' comments seem to indicate that it is intended to be violence for the sake of violence, and they explicitly reject the game being some kind of art: Of course, that same dev went on to try and offer some half-arsed claim that this is some kind of grand social experiment mean to make the player think about why someone would go on a mass shooting, so it could be that the game does have some form of deeper meaning and that the developer is a giant hypocrite who bashes on games as art while trying to defend their game as art. Well, either that or they're trolling.

In my opinion, Hatred presents no moral hazard, no more than a book or movie could. Let the game be released on GOG, and let the market determine if the developers sink or swim. Valve, or any distributor, should not have the right to censor their offerings. The consumers should decide for themselves.

Steam succumbs to market pressure :

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-12-15-controversial-mass-murdering-game-hatred-appears-on-steam-greenlight?utm_source=eurogamer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=net-daily

TL:DR

This morning Destructive Creations' Facebook page published an image of what looks like an email sent by Valve boss Gabe Newel to the developer's CEO that explains the decision.

"Hi, Jaroslaw," it begins.

"Yesterday I heard that we were taking Hatred down from Greenlight. Since I wasn't up to speed, I asked around internally to find out why we had done that. It turns out that it wasn't a good decision, and we'll be putting Hatred back up. My apologies to you and your team. Steam is about creating tools for content creators and customers.

"Good luck with your game.

"Gabe."

First they want to play moral arbiter, but then again, they wouldn't wanna miss out on those Gabenbux this game would rake in, would they?

Hypocritical fucks!

The thread title made me chuckle.

There are so much horrors in real-life, like virgin mass-fist-raping with insemnation; killing all males directly after birth; mutilation by cutting off several parts at a young age, total fixation and little or no movement throughout the whole LIFE; brutal, slow and painful death dictated by religious norms, etc... billions of times on a regular basis.
People here (most likely the OP too) pay for all this to actually happen and continue to happen, it's the egg, meat and milk industry.

This is f***ing real and you are calling a completely virtual thing sick and twisted, that's really ... and I don't know if I should laugh or cry so I just don't take it too seriously.
---------
Edit:
I didn't even know about this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Steam-Greenlight-PC-Gaming-No-Reply-Games-Seduce-Me-Miriam-Bellard,17369.html

Well, when a harmless (and boring) thing like this is banned, all violent games should be banned too (which would make the catalogue quite small). Oh I forgot... hypocrisy.