No, of course the moral panic is on the part of people who want to see video games grow the fuck up as an art form and a medium and be inclusive towards everyone. Of course the moral panic is on the part of people who would rather not share shelf-space, digital or physical, with people who by their own admission are making a game as a political-fuck-you to progress and as a message of hate. It can't possibly be on the part of people making overblown comparisons to Nazis, people crying out about anti-trust without the foggiest idea how anti-trust work, people engaging in slippery slope arguments and chicken-little fearmongering about how if they don't stand up for this piece of shit game, we're all at risk, something something William Wallace FREEEEEDOOOOOOOOM
What a load of histrionic bullshit. Next time you want to discourage anyone from painting you as a panicky moral guardian, maybe try not sounding exactly like one. It's absolutely shocking to me how badly people like you handle being disagreed with. Like yeah, anyone upset over products being pulled from shelves is overreacting, but overwrought hysterical drivel like yours is totally justified by a comic and a couple of blog posts criticizing your position.
The moment your opinion on what constitutes "progress for the medium" involves preventing the sale of games you personally disapprove of, your opinion can go get fucked. If you really don't want to "share shelf-space" with games you disapprove of, you can pull whatever it is YOU'RE selling. Or you can try to have other people's games pulled, but if that's your plan you should probably buck up and get used to being called a would-be censor and moral guardian.
Seriously, it's amazing to me how shocked some of you are that gaming as a community didn't greet your attempts at censorship with flowers and kisses, how baffled you are that taking the Right Wing Culture Warrior's Handbook and replacing "children" and "Jesus" with "progress" and "inclusivity" didn't magically prevent anyone from opposing you.
So then, do you think white supremacist groups should get to use Steam Greenlight to publish their games?
Islamic fundamentalist groups?
Because those people make video games! They do. Their games are fucking garbage from a technical perspective because they're propaganda tools first and foremost and don't have the technical proficiency of American propaganda tools like America's Army
Currently, their games couldn't get on Greenlight. But you're saying that, regardless of the political message behind them, regardless of the intention of the developers, we should ignore that because FREEDOM and Steam should be for EVERYONE regardless
is Hatred as bad as a game made by literal Nazis? No, of course not. I'm not saying that. That's not my point. But your point is that it doesn't matter what a game's political message is, it doesn't matter how harmful anyone thinks a game is, nobody gets to determine that a game is bad for society, Greenlight is for EVERYONE
"... people who would rather not share shelf-space, digital or physical..."
For all the talk of "growing the fuck up", not being able to be near someone that disagrees with you seems very childish.
Nice attempt at cherry-pickin', bro
If you don't understand how market economics and public perception of an entertainment medium work, I don't know what to tell you.
It's the same reasoning by which major movie studios don't want their professional films being shown in the same theaters as low-budget snuff porn made in some guy's van down by the river
If you think that's "childish" you don't have an adult view of the industry.
Steam's dominance on the PC market kind of makes it unavoidable. I suggest that you either get over it or try to do something about it. I mean, AAA games sell on the same place as all the cheap shovelware without too much issue.
I don't know that it's to the point of a monopoly but, barring a few notable exceptions, if you want your pc game to make money you need to be on steam, that is where the vast majority of sales happen
I don't know that it's to the point of a monopoly but, barring a few notable exceptions, if you want your pc game to make money you need to be on steam, that is where the vast majority of sales happen
the same could be said of big box retail stores, or malls, or whatnot. Steam has a huge audience for sure. i definitely doubt it has reached monopoly status, especially when Origin, Battle.net, GOG, Amazon, and others are all out there.
I don't know that it's to the point of a monopoly but, barring a few notable exceptions, if you want your pc game to make money you need to be on steam, that is where the vast majority of sales happen
EA games say hello.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
No, of course the moral panic is on the part of people who want to see video games grow the fuck up as an art form and a medium and be inclusive towards everyone. Of course the moral panic is on the part of people who would rather not share shelf-space, digital or physical, with people who by their own admission are making a game as a political-fuck-you to progress and as a message of hate. It can't possibly be on the part of people making overblown comparisons to Nazis, people crying out about anti-trust without the foggiest idea how anti-trust work, people engaging in slippery slope arguments and chicken-little fearmongering about how if they don't stand up for this piece of shit game, we're all at risk, something something William Wallace FREEEEEDOOOOOOOOM
What a load of histrionic bullshit. Next time you want to discourage anyone from painting you as a panicky moral guardian, maybe try not sounding exactly like one. It's absolutely shocking to me how badly people like you handle being disagreed with. Like yeah, anyone upset over products being pulled from shelves is overreacting, but overwrought hysterical drivel like yours is totally justified by a comic and a couple of blog posts criticizing your position.
The moment your opinion on what constitutes "progress for the medium" involves preventing the sale of games you personally disapprove of, your opinion can go get fucked. If you really don't want to "share shelf-space" with games you disapprove of, you can pull whatever it is YOU'RE selling. Or you can try to have other people's games pulled, but if that's your plan you should probably buck up and get used to being called a would-be censor and moral guardian.
Seriously, it's amazing to me how shocked some of you are that gaming as a community didn't greet your attempts at censorship with flowers and kisses, how baffled you are that taking the Right Wing Culture Warrior's Handbook and replacing "children" and "Jesus" with "progress" and "inclusivity" didn't magically prevent anyone from opposing you.
Beeftruck, real talk but are you capable of making a post like a grown up?
As opposed to one in which you throw personal attacks and state a smug yet vague superiority over us filthy censorship loving moral guardians?
Because honestly I'm looking through all your posts and I'm failing to see one where you actually had a point other than trumpeting your own righteous horn as the defender of free speech to the exclusion of literally all common sense.
Which I mean if that's what works for you by all means continue. Would just be nice to see an actual point come out of your random rhetoric rather than attacks.
I cannot help but notice the tonal difference from some spaces when it comes to addressing this compared to GTAV's removal from Target AU. A lot of people seemed pretty happy to talk up the free market back then and leave it at that, only lightly touching on the specifics of the petition itself. But consumer action here seems to have left people doing a bit of handwringing for reasons I don't fully understand.
I don't think very many people in this discussion disagree that the game is offensive and yes, pretty sick. You have every reason to hate this game and its content. But outside of that, so what? A trashy game is on Steam, big whoop. If we're not really concerned that this game is going to negatively affect anybody in the real world, and if we accept that Valve can stock what it likes for whatever reason, then what's the fuss? Hatred may very well be uniquely different from predecessors like Manhunt or Postal, but I'm not sure why the distinction matters here. And I don't really mind if it has some political message, or was purposefully designed to stick a finger in your eye. You're an adult, and I trust you can ignore it and move on.
If the argument against this game's existence is that it gives gaming a bad image... well, I wish you good luck in that fight. Despite the massive business and popularity of the industry, gaming has always been looked at like it's some odd, bastard media that doesn't really compare to other artistic mediums, and I frankly don't expect that to go away until more people grow older and die off. I have no interest in snubbing out titles like this in order to prove that my hobby has "matured" or some bullshit.
+2
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
I don't think there's much consumer action on any end
The game was up on greenlight, taken down, and back up again over the course of 48 hours
Fair enough. I thought it possible that some of the vocal outcry for its reinstatement could have played a part, but it's also possible Gabe made his decision regardless of it.
I don't know that it's to the point of a monopoly but, barring a few notable exceptions, if you want your pc game to make money you need to be on steam, that is where the vast majority of sales happen
EA games say hello.
some companies like ea and blizzard are big enough to eschew steam in favor of their own storefronts, and there have been a few breakout self-published titles like minecraft, but ignoring steam isn't really a financially advisable option for most games
+2
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I cannot help but notice the tonal difference from some spaces when it comes to addressing this compared to GTAV's removal from Target AU. A lot of people seemed pretty happy to talk up the free market back then and leave it at that, only lightly touching on the specifics of the petition itself. But consumer action here seems to have left people doing a bit of handwringing for reasons I don't fully understand.
For me, it's not so much that the games content is offensive because it's actually not something that new (Postal, Manhunt and in fact, Manhunt probably still is worse) but I am extremely concerned about the developers apparent links to extremist-right wing and Neo-NAZI groups in Poland, which goes well beyond just one guy supposedly "Accidentally" liking a facebook page of one group (then unliking it). This is definitely a game I would never ever buy for a variety of reasons, especially given the developers support of those things and again, nobody has any "right" to a store like Target or Steam. That they got put back on Greenlight is Valves decision and I honestly doubt being on steam is going to see a resurgence of people buying what looks to be a shitty game anyway.
Like anything, just because it's on steam doesn't mean I have to buy it and I would just frankly ignore it. What will be interesting to see is if Valve decide to put the game on Steam from the greenlight process or not. The voting is more a suggestion and not something that actually binds them to putting the game on Steam if they don't want to (and some dreadful shit gets greenlighted, including blatant scam games). If they do I'll just not buy the game anyway, if they don't, I'm not exactly going to worry that an incredibly offensive game built by supporters of right wing extremists/Neo-NAZIs isn't put onto the store. Nothing stops the developers selling the game on their own website or through other means if they want to.
Again, some people seem confused about the idea that "Access to a store" does not mean inherent endorsement about everything about that product. I don't believe EB Games here supports beating sex workers because they weren't moved by the same petition target was and it would be an asinine stance for anyone who actually did (IMO). Likewise denying access to a storefront is also equivalently, not censorship and especially when the developers are seemingly deliberately trying to troll the internet at that.
If the argument against this game's existence is that it gives gaming a bad image... well, I wish you good luck in that fight. Despite the massive business and popularity of the industry, gaming has always been looked at like it's some odd, bastard media that doesn't really compare to other artistic mediums, and I frankly don't expect that to go away until more people grow older and die off. I have no interest in snubbing out titles like this in order to prove that my hobby has "matured" or some bullshit.
it probably has to do with these games stating a racist message attacking people of color and people who work in the sex trade. surprise! some people don't gin with these kinds of speech gaining a platform!
and again, this goes back to Pony's initial point: Steam, Amazon, big box retailers, and others actively do not sell neo nazi propaganda, some kinds of pornography, certain types of literature, and other similar works all the time. individuals and groups have the freedom to express whatever they like (with the narrow "yelling fire in a crowded theater"-type exceptions). they are NOT entitled to a platform for that speech. what you and beeftruck seem to be claiming is that stores like Steam are obligated to sell games like Hatred. they are not, and the result of that would be absurd.
if anything, if gaming if becoming a part of mainstream art, culture, and hobbies, people who play games are going to have to shed this "but we're unique!" hangup. entering the mainstream means quite the opposite. it means you are going to have to back up your speech and choices and face the consequences of your speech. one of those consequences is: people are going to disagree on the value of specific speech.
I don't know that it's to the point of a monopoly but, barring a few notable exceptions, if you want your pc game to make money you need to be on steam, that is where the vast majority of sales happen
EA games say hello.
some companies like ea and blizzard are big enough to eschew steam in favor of their own storefronts, and there have been a few breakout self-published titles like minecraft, but ignoring steam isn't really a financially advisable option for most games
for sure, of course, but it's not like it's wrong of wal-mart to refuse to carry A Serbian Film the same way it wouldn't be wrong of steam to refuse to carry hatred
I still wonder, if Tycho is so certain that every platform should be used for every piece of art, why he doesn't open up his own platform for games rejected by Steam. His platform is not quite as big as Gabe Newell's, but he's still pretty damn influential.
He did. For a brief period, PA had a digital store called Greenhouse that was the original place to buy the first episodes of Rain-Slick Precipice. This was back when competing with Steam was super difficult, so it didn't last long.
what you and beeftruck seem to be claiming is that stores like Steam are obligated to sell games like Hatred. they are not, and the result of that would be absurd.
I have not made that argument. I just don't necessarily agree with the sentiment expressed here that Steam shouldn't carry it either.
Now I've watched the trailer for the game and visited its website, but I have not seen anything that makes it explicitly racist or prejudiced against anybody in particular. And regardless of what some Facebook screenshots and t-shirts might say, I do not think that's enough evidence to call them Nazis. Far right possibly, but there is a difference. If there is some serious truth to those allegations, or if I have overlooked something in the game's media, then I honestly would like to be shown that. Because that likely would change my position.
I really do not feel I need a lecture on free speech, as I pretty much agree with you. But it seems a little strange to talk about its consequences when they have just happened. I am not at all concerned about gaming's misguidedly sought "legitimacy" in the future. It will grow and sustain regardless of the mainstream's opinion on it (as if gaming isn't already mainstream for the most part any way) and some trashy shock game that will be forgotten a month after release is not going to stop that, nor would a dozen more games like it. Steam or no Steam.
Man, people in this thread must've had the same "Word a Day" calendar, and "Histrionic" must've been a recent entry.
I'm a verbose motherfucker and when I use words unfamiliar to folk they tend to get catchy n shit
Truth.
Back to the topic, I think if this Hatred thing hadn't happened so soon after the GTAV thing, we probably wouldn't have heard anything about it. That being said, I think the whole "no platform" way of thinking is slowly creeping into the video game world, and mainstream society as a whole, and it's making people uncomfortable. Not because the groups and organizations that are currently considered taboo (ie- Polish Neo-Nazis, which I still haven't seen any real hard evidence to support, but I haven't looked very hard either), but because of the precedent it's setting.
People are erroneously labelling it censorship, but it's not exactly it. We've had a movement away from a rigid religious mindset over the past 50-60 years, and people feel that the pendulum is now swinging too far the other way... The past 50 years has been about tolerance and new freedoms. People now see that tolerance eroding away, only this time instead of "Think of the children!" it's things like "Think of the women!". Instead of "this is sinful!", we have "This is gross!". Instead of concerns about Witchcraft and Satanism, we have concepts like "Rape Culture", which may be on the cusp of crumbling as a legit concept as we actually study the numbers more.
So the reactions are not necessarily directly related to the specific situations we have had recently, but more to a perceived nervousness over moving back into McCarthyism. Replace "Communist" with "Misogynist" or "Conservative", etc. etc.. I think this is the mindset of the people that are outraged by some of the recently mini-scandals. I think by and large they mostly agree with the beliefs of "the other side", but don't agree with the methods that they employ.
PAX is literally the largest gaming convention on Earth right now, with multiple iterations on multiple continents per year. It's huge and if Jerry ever was really gasping about moral panics and feeling the clammy hand of censorship (as he sees it) on his shoulder he could very easily turn the media empire at his fingertips to work to fight against that.
Which, to an extent, he does. He writes op-eds that color the whole issue and cause people in this very thread to use the phrase moral panic to describe what's happening now in gaming. Ironically, for those of you using the phrase "moral panic" (which doesn't mean what you think it means, look up what actual moral panics are sometime in your history books, kids) to describe these things you seem awfully panicked about the morality of things not going the way you want, even though those things don't meaningfully matter. Almost as if... you're... having some kind of... moral panic?
No, no that's crazy! You couldn't possibly be over-reacting to Australian box stores opting not to sell a game due to petitioning, comparing them to literal Nazis, or Steam opting not to Greenlight a game that even the most hand-wringing among you can't really bring yourself to defend on its own merits as possibly a good game. No, no, it has to be these "moral guardians"! They're the ones who are over-reacting, not you! You couldn't possibly be lashing out in fear like a bunch of NRA gun-clutchers holding your M4s to your chests screaming "THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE OUR GUNS"
No, of course the moral panic is on the part of people who want to see video games grow the fuck up as an art form and a medium and be inclusive towards everyone. Of course the moral panic is on the part of people who would rather not share shelf-space, digital or physical, with people who by their own admission are making a game as a political-fuck-you to progress and as a message of hate. It can't possibly be on the part of people making overblown comparisons to Nazis, people crying out about anti-trust without the foggiest idea how anti-trust work, people engaging in slippery slope arguments and chicken-little fearmongering about how if they don't stand up for this piece of shit game, we're all at risk, something something William Wallace FREEEEEDOOOOOOOOM
If you disagree with people, fine. If you think that people who want to see video games progress as a medium and be more inclusive to all people are wrong, fine. If you think that people should just... be cool with a group directly using a video game as a hatemongering agitation piece, fine. I think all those viewpoints are asinine, personally, but they're your views. I'll argue with you about them, but so long as they're your views, they're your views.
But once you start characterizing people you disagree with as "moral guardians" or these events as a "moral panic", you're chuckin' a big fuckin' rock from your glass fuckin' house, bro.
I would agree with you that a lot of times, the reaction to this kind of thing is overblown. Many people have strong reactions to discussions about free speech, and tend to draw wide-ranging parallels that are not always warranted compared to the actions being taken.
However, I think you are a pretty fundamental difference between the two groups here, which you are ignoring. Group A is actively attempting to suppress artistic content through any means they can, and Group B is not. Ideology is not the only thing that matters. Actions matter. Examining people's actions independent of their stated ideology is often a very useful way to navigate ethical questions. To paraphrase Captain America, the bad guys tend to be the ones shooting.
If a person attempts to suppress art that they believe to be immortal, I am fairly comfortable grouping them alongside all of the others who have historically attempted to suppress art that they believe to be immoral. That many of
them resist this characterization is not especially surprising, and not especially convincing. To my mind, a right-wing fundamentalist and a radical progressive who both spend most of their time attempting to suppress immoral art have a great deal in common. The differences in their ideology exist, but are largely irrelevant, because the actions they are taking lead to essentially the same end.
I would also say that concerns about Steam making decisions about banning games based on offensive content seem pretty well-founded to me. For various reasons, most online commerce sites tend to form into de-facto monopolies in their niche, in which one company controls massive market shares and everyone else fights over the scraps. We've seen this pattern consistently with Steam, Amazon, Ebay, YouTube, ect. While this certainly isn't the fault of the censors, it seems disingenuous to pretend that we live in a world with a great variety of stores competing for marketshare, when that is clearly not the world we live in. I suspect that for many of the censors, their happiness with that world only extends so far as it supports their own political views. If a major marketplace for artistic expression was picking and choosing content based on, say, religious conservative values, I suspect it would not be getting the same kind of reception from most of this forum. If Comcast decided to cut off access to your favorite websites because it considered them to be politically subversive, the idea that this is acceptable because "you can always get dial-up" would probably ring pretty hollow to you, and rightly so.
The long-term solution is probably just to break up the psuedo-monopolies and remove some of the nastier incentives the system creates. The short-term solution is to accept that being in the same space as someone you disagree with probably won't hurt you all that much. That's historically been the general case for civilization and human flourishing, so I feel pretty safe in encouraging it.
Again, can any of you dudes doing this whole "STEAM SHOULD JUST ALLOW EVERYTHING" type argument answer the question of whether Steam should allow literal Neo-Nazis to publish actual, literal white supremacy propaganda games via Steam?
Because currently, Steam does not allow that. They never have, and white supremacy groups have bitched about it in the past and nobody gives a shit because nobody really cares that white supremacists have less outlets for expression than other people!
I'm okay with that. Are you okay with that? Please advise.
I mean, Steam doesn't allow porn companies to put literal porn games up on Steam either. I ain't seen any outcry over that before!
Steam's right as a private company to distribute content of their choice has not been in question before, so why now?
Oh, because of this victim-complex mentality that some self-identified gamers have nowadays like they're under attack by somebody. If it's not Jack Thompson or right-wing "Moral Guardians", it's people who are their complete political opposites yet somehow are still out to persecute gamers and take away their games! (Said with all the shrill tone of Stephen Colbert doing an impression of an NRA member, try to imagine it!)
Like, does it not seem absurd to you dudes that you're somehow the center of attack by every single possible political spectrum in twenty years? Doesn't that seem odd? Or perhaps you're not under attack, that there is no attack on gaming coming from without, there's a change in gaming coming from within, from people who actually play games? Yeah, maybe that's possible.
And there are people, and Destructive Creations are among those people, who are directly opposed to that change and feel it is a direct hostile attack on them. Their response is to make an offensive political statement back, and they've expressly stated that as such. Steam, for a brief moment, opted not to include that political statement in their Greenlight program, as they have in the past declined to include other hostile and hate-filled political statements. They reversed their decision, and that's their choice and their right as a platform.
Do you think they should also open the door to other hate-filled rhetoric masquerading as games? After all, you wouldn't want to censor people from such a monopoly, right?
Man, people in this thread must've had the same "Word a Day" calendar, and "Histrionic" must've been a recent entry.
RPGPundit and other proponents of the Dark Enlightenment movement have been using it recently, as have Freep and StormFront.
e:Watching the slippery slope argument applied to people who object to supporting Nazis is awful.
e2:Double checked. They've been using it as their go to insult since the start, with Pundit only recently re-adapting it.
Edith Upwards on
0
Options
MrMiscreantMean motor scooterHiding in the back seat of your carRegistered Userregular
Like, does it not seem absurd to you dudes that you're somehow the center of attack by every single possible political spectrum in twenty years? Doesn't that seem odd?
Should it? Both Jesse Helms and Andrea Dworkin would have been happy to legislate pornography into oblivion, for example. Getting it from both ends (so to speak) doesn't make a position invalid, or even necessarily suspect.
Man, people in this thread must've had the same "Word a Day" calendar, and "Histrionic" must've been a recent entry.
RPGPundit and other proponents of the Dark Enlightenment movement have been using it recently, as have Freep and StormFront.
e:Watching the slippery slope argument applied to people who object to supporting Nazis is awful.
e2:Double checked. They've been using it as their go to insult since the start, with Pundit only recently re-adapting it.
so is this one of those "dog whistle" words? Or are we throwing around storm front words here satirically?
Like, does it not seem absurd to you dudes that you're somehow the center of attack by every single possible political spectrum in twenty years? Doesn't that seem odd?
Should it? Both Jesse Helms and Andrea Dworkin would have been happy to legislate pornography into oblivion, for example. Getting it from both ends (so to speak) doesn't make a position invalid, or even necessarily suspect.
The sentiment you quoted strikes me as very partisan. Either you agree with me 100% or you disagree with me 100%. Either you're against the terrorists or you're with them.
Can't people's opinions be their own without going all in on a certain ideology/political leaning?
Posts
So then, do you think white supremacist groups should get to use Steam Greenlight to publish their games?
Islamic fundamentalist groups?
Because those people make video games! They do. Their games are fucking garbage from a technical perspective because they're propaganda tools first and foremost and don't have the technical proficiency of American propaganda tools like America's Army
Currently, their games couldn't get on Greenlight. But you're saying that, regardless of the political message behind them, regardless of the intention of the developers, we should ignore that because FREEDOM and Steam should be for EVERYONE regardless
is Hatred as bad as a game made by literal Nazis? No, of course not. I'm not saying that. That's not my point. But your point is that it doesn't matter what a game's political message is, it doesn't matter how harmful anyone thinks a game is, nobody gets to determine that a game is bad for society, Greenlight is for EVERYONE
So, how far do you go, bro?
For all the talk of "growing the fuck up", not being able to be near someone that disagrees with you seems very childish.
Nice attempt at cherry-pickin', bro
If you don't understand how market economics and public perception of an entertainment medium work, I don't know what to tell you.
It's the same reasoning by which major movie studios don't want their professional films being shown in the same theaters as low-budget snuff porn made in some guy's van down by the river
If you think that's "childish" you don't have an adult view of the industry.
your entire point reduces to attacking the person, rather than the argument.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
the same could be said of big box retail stores, or malls, or whatnot. Steam has a huge audience for sure. i definitely doubt it has reached monopoly status, especially when Origin, Battle.net, GOG, Amazon, and others are all out there.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
EA games say hello.
Beeftruck, real talk but are you capable of making a post like a grown up?
As opposed to one in which you throw personal attacks and state a smug yet vague superiority over us filthy censorship loving moral guardians?
Because honestly I'm looking through all your posts and I'm failing to see one where you actually had a point other than trumpeting your own righteous horn as the defender of free speech to the exclusion of literally all common sense.
Which I mean if that's what works for you by all means continue. Would just be nice to see an actual point come out of your random rhetoric rather than attacks.
But, I'm going to keep attacking his argument.
Let's see if it pays off for him.
I don't think very many people in this discussion disagree that the game is offensive and yes, pretty sick. You have every reason to hate this game and its content. But outside of that, so what? A trashy game is on Steam, big whoop. If we're not really concerned that this game is going to negatively affect anybody in the real world, and if we accept that Valve can stock what it likes for whatever reason, then what's the fuss? Hatred may very well be uniquely different from predecessors like Manhunt or Postal, but I'm not sure why the distinction matters here. And I don't really mind if it has some political message, or was purposefully designed to stick a finger in your eye. You're an adult, and I trust you can ignore it and move on.
If the argument against this game's existence is that it gives gaming a bad image... well, I wish you good luck in that fight. Despite the massive business and popularity of the industry, gaming has always been looked at like it's some odd, bastard media that doesn't really compare to other artistic mediums, and I frankly don't expect that to go away until more people grow older and die off. I have no interest in snubbing out titles like this in order to prove that my hobby has "matured" or some bullshit.
I'll role play as an alluminist, crafting magical lightweight nonferrous armor.a
The game was up on greenlight, taken down, and back up again over the course of 48 hours
The real issue at stake here: aluminium or aluminum?
Fair enough. I thought it possible that some of the vocal outcry for its reinstatement could have played a part, but it's also possible Gabe made his decision regardless of it.
Still the free market though! And stuff!
some companies like ea and blizzard are big enough to eschew steam in favor of their own storefronts, and there have been a few breakout self-published titles like minecraft, but ignoring steam isn't really a financially advisable option for most games
For me, it's not so much that the games content is offensive because it's actually not something that new (Postal, Manhunt and in fact, Manhunt probably still is worse) but I am extremely concerned about the developers apparent links to extremist-right wing and Neo-NAZI groups in Poland, which goes well beyond just one guy supposedly "Accidentally" liking a facebook page of one group (then unliking it). This is definitely a game I would never ever buy for a variety of reasons, especially given the developers support of those things and again, nobody has any "right" to a store like Target or Steam. That they got put back on Greenlight is Valves decision and I honestly doubt being on steam is going to see a resurgence of people buying what looks to be a shitty game anyway.
Like anything, just because it's on steam doesn't mean I have to buy it and I would just frankly ignore it. What will be interesting to see is if Valve decide to put the game on Steam from the greenlight process or not. The voting is more a suggestion and not something that actually binds them to putting the game on Steam if they don't want to (and some dreadful shit gets greenlighted, including blatant scam games). If they do I'll just not buy the game anyway, if they don't, I'm not exactly going to worry that an incredibly offensive game built by supporters of right wing extremists/Neo-NAZIs isn't put onto the store. Nothing stops the developers selling the game on their own website or through other means if they want to.
Again, some people seem confused about the idea that "Access to a store" does not mean inherent endorsement about everything about that product. I don't believe EB Games here supports beating sex workers because they weren't moved by the same petition target was and it would be an asinine stance for anyone who actually did (IMO). Likewise denying access to a storefront is also equivalently, not censorship and especially when the developers are seemingly deliberately trying to troll the internet at that.
it probably has to do with these games stating a racist message attacking people of color and people who work in the sex trade. surprise! some people don't gin with these kinds of speech gaining a platform!
and again, this goes back to Pony's initial point: Steam, Amazon, big box retailers, and others actively do not sell neo nazi propaganda, some kinds of pornography, certain types of literature, and other similar works all the time. individuals and groups have the freedom to express whatever they like (with the narrow "yelling fire in a crowded theater"-type exceptions). they are NOT entitled to a platform for that speech. what you and beeftruck seem to be claiming is that stores like Steam are obligated to sell games like Hatred. they are not, and the result of that would be absurd.
if anything, if gaming if becoming a part of mainstream art, culture, and hobbies, people who play games are going to have to shed this "but we're unique!" hangup. entering the mainstream means quite the opposite. it means you are going to have to back up your speech and choices and face the consequences of your speech. one of those consequences is: people are going to disagree on the value of specific speech.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
for sure, of course, but it's not like it's wrong of wal-mart to refuse to carry A Serbian Film the same way it wouldn't be wrong of steam to refuse to carry hatred
I'm a verbose motherfucker and when I use words unfamiliar to folk they tend to get catchy n shit
I have not made that argument. I just don't necessarily agree with the sentiment expressed here that Steam shouldn't carry it either.
Now I've watched the trailer for the game and visited its website, but I have not seen anything that makes it explicitly racist or prejudiced against anybody in particular. And regardless of what some Facebook screenshots and t-shirts might say, I do not think that's enough evidence to call them Nazis. Far right possibly, but there is a difference. If there is some serious truth to those allegations, or if I have overlooked something in the game's media, then I honestly would like to be shown that. Because that likely would change my position.
I really do not feel I need a lecture on free speech, as I pretty much agree with you. But it seems a little strange to talk about its consequences when they have just happened. I am not at all concerned about gaming's misguidedly sought "legitimacy" in the future. It will grow and sustain regardless of the mainstream's opinion on it (as if gaming isn't already mainstream for the most part any way) and some trashy shock game that will be forgotten a month after release is not going to stop that, nor would a dozen more games like it. Steam or no Steam.
Which is odd, considering how easily it can be misused in internet arguments.
Without all the like, Neo-Nazi links and other implied awful shenanigans that have come out since then
Truth.
Back to the topic, I think if this Hatred thing hadn't happened so soon after the GTAV thing, we probably wouldn't have heard anything about it. That being said, I think the whole "no platform" way of thinking is slowly creeping into the video game world, and mainstream society as a whole, and it's making people uncomfortable. Not because the groups and organizations that are currently considered taboo (ie- Polish Neo-Nazis, which I still haven't seen any real hard evidence to support, but I haven't looked very hard either), but because of the precedent it's setting.
People are erroneously labelling it censorship, but it's not exactly it. We've had a movement away from a rigid religious mindset over the past 50-60 years, and people feel that the pendulum is now swinging too far the other way... The past 50 years has been about tolerance and new freedoms. People now see that tolerance eroding away, only this time instead of "Think of the children!" it's things like "Think of the women!". Instead of "this is sinful!", we have "This is gross!". Instead of concerns about Witchcraft and Satanism, we have concepts like "Rape Culture", which may be on the cusp of crumbling as a legit concept as we actually study the numbers more.
So the reactions are not necessarily directly related to the specific situations we have had recently, but more to a perceived nervousness over moving back into McCarthyism. Replace "Communist" with "Misogynist" or "Conservative", etc. etc.. I think this is the mindset of the people that are outraged by some of the recently mini-scandals. I think by and large they mostly agree with the beliefs of "the other side", but don't agree with the methods that they employ.
Hope that makes sense.
I would agree with you that a lot of times, the reaction to this kind of thing is overblown. Many people have strong reactions to discussions about free speech, and tend to draw wide-ranging parallels that are not always warranted compared to the actions being taken.
However, I think you are a pretty fundamental difference between the two groups here, which you are ignoring. Group A is actively attempting to suppress artistic content through any means they can, and Group B is not. Ideology is not the only thing that matters. Actions matter. Examining people's actions independent of their stated ideology is often a very useful way to navigate ethical questions. To paraphrase Captain America, the bad guys tend to be the ones shooting.
If a person attempts to suppress art that they believe to be immortal, I am fairly comfortable grouping them alongside all of the others who have historically attempted to suppress art that they believe to be immoral. That many of
them resist this characterization is not especially surprising, and not especially convincing. To my mind, a right-wing fundamentalist and a radical progressive who both spend most of their time attempting to suppress immoral art have a great deal in common. The differences in their ideology exist, but are largely irrelevant, because the actions they are taking lead to essentially the same end.
I would also say that concerns about Steam making decisions about banning games based on offensive content seem pretty well-founded to me. For various reasons, most online commerce sites tend to form into de-facto monopolies in their niche, in which one company controls massive market shares and everyone else fights over the scraps. We've seen this pattern consistently with Steam, Amazon, Ebay, YouTube, ect. While this certainly isn't the fault of the censors, it seems disingenuous to pretend that we live in a world with a great variety of stores competing for marketshare, when that is clearly not the world we live in. I suspect that for many of the censors, their happiness with that world only extends so far as it supports their own political views. If a major marketplace for artistic expression was picking and choosing content based on, say, religious conservative values, I suspect it would not be getting the same kind of reception from most of this forum. If Comcast decided to cut off access to your favorite websites because it considered them to be politically subversive, the idea that this is acceptable because "you can always get dial-up" would probably ring pretty hollow to you, and rightly so.
The long-term solution is probably just to break up the psuedo-monopolies and remove some of the nastier incentives the system creates. The short-term solution is to accept that being in the same space as someone you disagree with probably won't hurt you all that much. That's historically been the general case for civilization and human flourishing, so I feel pretty safe in encouraging it.
Because currently, Steam does not allow that. They never have, and white supremacy groups have bitched about it in the past and nobody gives a shit because nobody really cares that white supremacists have less outlets for expression than other people!
I'm okay with that. Are you okay with that? Please advise.
I mean, Steam doesn't allow porn companies to put literal porn games up on Steam either. I ain't seen any outcry over that before!
Steam's right as a private company to distribute content of their choice has not been in question before, so why now?
Oh, because of this victim-complex mentality that some self-identified gamers have nowadays like they're under attack by somebody. If it's not Jack Thompson or right-wing "Moral Guardians", it's people who are their complete political opposites yet somehow are still out to persecute gamers and take away their games! (Said with all the shrill tone of Stephen Colbert doing an impression of an NRA member, try to imagine it!)
Like, does it not seem absurd to you dudes that you're somehow the center of attack by every single possible political spectrum in twenty years? Doesn't that seem odd? Or perhaps you're not under attack, that there is no attack on gaming coming from without, there's a change in gaming coming from within, from people who actually play games? Yeah, maybe that's possible.
And there are people, and Destructive Creations are among those people, who are directly opposed to that change and feel it is a direct hostile attack on them. Their response is to make an offensive political statement back, and they've expressly stated that as such. Steam, for a brief moment, opted not to include that political statement in their Greenlight program, as they have in the past declined to include other hostile and hate-filled political statements. They reversed their decision, and that's their choice and their right as a platform.
Do you think they should also open the door to other hate-filled rhetoric masquerading as games? After all, you wouldn't want to censor people from such a monopoly, right?
:bzz:
RPGPundit and other proponents of the Dark Enlightenment movement have been using it recently, as have Freep and StormFront.
e:Watching the slippery slope argument applied to people who object to supporting Nazis is awful.
e2:Double checked. They've been using it as their go to insult since the start, with Pundit only recently re-adapting it.
Should it? Both Jesse Helms and Andrea Dworkin would have been happy to legislate pornography into oblivion, for example. Getting it from both ends (so to speak) doesn't make a position invalid, or even necessarily suspect.
PSN: CitizenXero
NNID: TheFennec
so is this one of those "dog whistle" words? Or are we throwing around storm front words here satirically?
The sentiment you quoted strikes me as very partisan. Either you agree with me 100% or you disagree with me 100%. Either you're against the terrorists or you're with them.
Can't people's opinions be their own without going all in on a certain ideology/political leaning?