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

×
avatar
JKHSawyer: 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.
avatar
monkeydelarge: My respect for Gabe went from "meh" to THIS GUY IS AWESOME! right after reading that. Even if he did it for the future $$$, he still deserves respect for not being one of those people who thinks this game is so evil, it should never be unleashed upon the Earth. Basically, he has proved to the world, that he is not a delusional SJW, at least.
Dude, Gabe is the guy that helped port DOOM to Windows 95, of course he's not a SJW.
Post edited December 17, 2014 by JKHSawyer
avatar
monkeydelarge: You don't get it. All you are doing is saying, that people have the right to this and the right to that. That stores don't have any responsibility. That store can do whatever the fuck they want. That morals don't matter. Blah Blah. What a load of bullshit.. Rights don't = the moral high ground. Having the right to do something doesn't mean people should make use of that right. Having the right to do something, doesn't make it some magical I can do whatever I want and it's the right thing to do pass. Before the 1800s, men used to have the right to beat their wives. So like I said rights don't = what is right. If tomorrow, your government gave you the right to murder innocent people, would you go out and make use of that right? Based on your post, I'm guessing your answer would be yes...

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..
You know, I wrote a gigantic wall of text in reply to your gigantic wall of text in reply to my gigantic wall of text, but it amounted to this, basically, so I'll just say it instead.

avatar
monkeydelarge: 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".
No, they're not.
You just contradicted yourself. People are not entitled to have other people sell products for them, so they're not entitled to have other people sell products for them.
The rest of your post effectively amounts to one gigantic tirade of childish attacks on the mental soundness of anyone and everyone who doesn't share your - entirely personal - definition of right and wrong, so I'm going to outright ignore it.
Infact, just as a heads up, I'm going to outright ignore you from now on. And no, that's not breaching your freedom of speech.

You do, infact, have freedom of speech. Freedom to speak. That's it, that's all it is. The freedom to say words. That freedom of speech cannot be used to justify any demand that anyone ever actually listen to you or do anything you say, ever. You are being allowed to speak, and your rights are not being breached. That's "rights" as in legal AND moral rights, by the way. You are no more or less important than any other human being on the planet. Period.

The developers are being allowed to make their game - and even sell it - their rights are not being breached.
People are demanding that Valve sell a specific game on their storefront regardless of their feelings on the matter - but since they don't actually have to listen, and are still free to decide for themselves, their rights are not being breached.

Oh, haha, one last thing.

avatar
monkeydelarge: 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.
You know what you'd be doing, there?
Censoring them.

Good day.
avatar
JKHSawyer: 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.
Gabe just earned a lot of respect. Hope he lives forever because this situation shows that without him Steam will become everything we fear it might become.
avatar
DieRuhe: 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. :-)
avatar
amok: 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...
"Made the game for available for purchase" then, which to me is releasing it. I didn't say create or produce or program. If a company makes a game and has no way to distribute it, is it released? Kinda like I write a book and don't submit it anywhere; is it published?
avatar
monkeydelarge:
Not that it is relevant to the discussion anymore, but it again seems you're applying standards inconsistently. You talk about morality, but then you give examples of rights. You agree that they have the right to not sell any game they want, but you make out as if it is immoral of them not to sell a game.
I'm sorry, but that's not true either.
There's nothing intrinsically immoral about a private company or individual person not wanting to sell something they don't want to sell- for personal, financial, or whatever reasons. They might get called out on it (but that's morally neutral as well) and flip flop on that decision (which may or may not be what happened here), but morally doesn't enter anywhere into it.
Post edited December 17, 2014 by babark
Call me blind, but where is Greenlight now? I scrolled through the whole storefront and couldn't seem to find it; all I see is tons and tons of "recommendations."
avatar
DieRuhe: Call me blind, but where is Greenlight now? I scrolled through the whole storefront and couldn't seem to find it; all I see is tons and tons of "recommendations."
Under Community.
avatar
JKHSawyer: 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.
That's good news if it's true.
avatar
JKHSawyer: 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.
avatar
Nirth: That's good news if it's true.
Indeed. I may hate his products, but I love his backbone. Takes balls to stand up to these monkeys. I'd much rather see sincere rhetoric than insincere apologies.
avatar
JKHSawyer: 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.
avatar
Nirth: That's good news if it's true.
Don't worry, it's true.

http://forums.hatredgame.com/download/file.php?id=35

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/10869420_387305204770143_7439870110579637586_o.jpg

and that screencap is old, its well in 30,000 now.
avatar
monkeydelarge: 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.
If I choose not to participate in a protest, I'm not a censor of that protest. If I choose not to sell a product, I am not a censor of that product.

Freedom of Speech also encompasses the right to not participate in - or help propagate - someone else's speech.
I don't understand why a business shouldn't have the right to choose what they sell. It's as an inherent right as a buyer to choose what he or she does with their money.
avatar
Nirth: I don't understand why a business shouldn't have the right to choose what they sell. It's as an inherent right as a buyer to choose what he or she does with their money.
No one should force a store to sell anything. We have the right to call them out for being cowards.
avatar
Nirth: I don't understand why a business shouldn't have the right to choose what they sell. It's as an inherent right as a buyer to choose what he or she does with their money.
avatar
realkman666: No one should force a store to sell anything. We have the right to call them out for being cowards.
It's not cowardice. Some things aren't worth the hassle.
GOG is the boutique while Steam is the 1,99 Reais store just about 10 blocks from where I live :)
This game is the Streisand Effect ladies and gents and it is in full force. And IMO,it's trying what too hard to be edgy and dark.
avatar
Pheace: It's a little conflicting with GOG's "boutique" approach but I can see your point.
avatar
l0rdtr3k:
Post edited December 17, 2014 by l0rdtr3k