I guess they're predicting more of a backlash from people if they release this game than they'd get if they don't. Which by all accounts is understandable. I'm quite content to play some very violent games, but there's something about the tone of this game that really does make it live up to its name to an uncomfortable degree.

Given the number of outright broken games on Steam right now, and all the ones that have been on there for extended periods of time, I think it's easy enough to conclude that it's not a quality issue. I don't even think there is such a thing as a quality issue when it comes to Steam.

I have the right to troll you on the internet for the next 6 months? Would you think less of me if I made use of that right? Could we become friends while I make use of that right? I'm not going to troll you for the next 6 months. I'm just trying to make a point.

And I have the right to judge that they want to limit the choices of the consumers. Game looks interesting.

Of course they want to limit the choices of consumers, they're a store. That's what stores do. GOG doesn't sell every game submitted to them either. I don't get the issue.

They're free to make and release the game, but they don't get a guaranteed Steam page.

Maybe Valve should exercise that right BEFORE letting it get to the point where customers think its their own choice.

Steam is a totalitarian dictatorship. You only ever get the illusion of a say in what goes on and even that much is purely for their own ends - putting up titles that will sell and avoiding getting flooded with too much unsaleable crap. Note that Greenlight doesn't do a damn single thing to guarantee quality. All it does is guarantee sales.

Don't get me wrong. I've got hundreds of titles on Steam and use it often. But I seriously think you're misrepresenting the matter here.

Kind of OT but since we are talking about Steam; do you think anyone ever goes into their forums and ask if they can use GOG keys there?

Congratulations! You just proved that you have abvsolutely no knowledge of applied social studies or political science. Next time I discuss animals, I will claim that a dog is a cat, should have the exact same validity.

And yes, authorities in a political sense means exactly institutions like police, jurisdiction and similar stuff. A single shop can never be authorities in that context. If it doesn't sell something, you simply go to another shop. It has completely nothing to do with censorship.

I don't argue about the game, but if you want to discuss about the matter, you should get your definitions right.

I think someone should .But knowing Steam forums that would be a ban right there.

Heh, that's pure circular logic; saying that censorship has to be political, therefore the only sense authority etc can be used in is in the political sense. Each point is wholly dependent upon the other being true and neither stands without independent support and it ignores the very real phenomenon of self censorship too.

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.

Jim Sterling made a good point about Valve allowing utter garbage like Guise of the Wolf, Slaughtering Grounds, Air Control and many more but banning this one from Greenlight.
As for the game, still not a word about any kind of plot (other than 'you play as a rampaging psycho') so I'm still not that interested.

Thanks for the link. I liked TB's video on the subject, too.

You know Steam - no naughty words! Even if it's a legitimate word like "shuttlecock." So just wondering, is that censorship or "upholding community standards" or whatever?

Time for bed, but just to clarify this to myself, I see choosing to not release a game because of its content as censorship. Not releasing a game due to technical issues or inability to make a deal, not censorship.

KMart not selling GTA V because some people whined about it: censorship.

And since we're talking about crap, Steam earns my ire for releasing Goat Simulator. :-)

If I proved to you that I have absolutely no knowledge of applied social studies or political science, then so what. I don't see the big deal because we are talking about CENSORSHIP on the internet in a thread at a forum for gamers. I never claimed to be some political science know it all. OH NO, I lack knowledge when it comes to political science!

I don't see how not knowing the correct definitions used in the field of political science make me incapable of debating about censorship. And it doesn't take much to see if something is censorship or not. All it takes is common sense. So you can take your fancy university education and shove it where the sun don't shine. Not only is Valve, capable of censorship. Right now, they are taking part in censorship. There is a whole wikipedia article dedicated to censorship by corporations. In fact, corporate censorship is a huge problem and has been for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

Steam did not release Goat Simulator, Coffee Stain Studio did. As far as I know, Steam have never released a single game. Same as with gOg...

Anyway, and Hatred is also not the first game to be removed from Greenligth by Valve, strange no one shouted CENSORSHIP in those situations...