Hatred pulled from greenlight

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Manhunt hasn't been discussed in years. As far as it being "controversial", it hasn't had that status for over half a decade.

GTA gets far less criticism than it once did (it was enemy #1 for games for a while), and has only recently flared up again with regards to any meaningful "controversy". But it has a massive series of benefits that Hatred does not.

A longrunning, multi-billion dollar franchise selling tens of millions of copies
A very well respected developer
A well respected publisher
A whole hell of a lot of money behind it
A massive fanbase

Hatred has a grand total of 0 of these things going for it.

But thats the problem. You're basically agreeing that "Hatreds" problem is that its not established or a huge hit. That shouldn't make one murder game okay and another not okay. Either mass violence is wrong or it isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, how dare Valve do what is in the best interest of them making money.

Yes, indeed. bend rules solely to make money. Okay.

[Blur4stuff]

a lot of people argue that the content doesn't matter. but, supposedly murder is worse than other things that you wouldn't defend in a video game.

[Deleted]

Yes, how dare Valve do what is in the best interest of them making money.

Pulling a game surely isnt making them any money.

[Pengalor]

No...if you actually read the OP and the poll, it seems to be pretty clear cut that it's talking about who should have the right to dictate what companies sell, consumers or the companies. Unless the OP worded it extremely poorly, which I'll let them clarify if necessary.

"It should be our choice"

What should be our choice? We should get to decide what retailers can or can't carry? We should decide whether we want to buy the game or not? We should decide whether retailers should be allowed to remove item at their discretion? I'm sorry but I think you're reading what you want to read into it because it's most definitely not clear.

[Deleted]

If I was Steam I would have pulled that game aswell. I cannot imagine the amount of bad press I would get for allowing it on my service to be worth whatever it'll end up bringing in.. I mean, if the game sells 10 million copies that's another story and I would, as Steam, regret having pulled it.. But we're talking Steam Greenlight and allowing a game like Hatred to go out would lead to MUCH worse press than if a couple million people got upset that the game was pulled.

They have the right to and absolutely should. Besides, I feel that Hatred is a very niche game that will appeal to maybe a couple hundred thousand people at most. Those who are interrested enough in the game to be outraged by this are interrested enough to just get the game at the developers source, right..?

It's about availability and supply and demand concepts. Yeah, we could greenlight a title like Hatred and yeah, Valve could choose not to pull it but.. should they? Is Hatred a game we want pushed into unsuspecting peoples faces and do we really want to deal with the outcome of that? Do we really want it to be on "New titles!" on Steams front page drawing people who might end up getting hugely outraged by the game who would otherwise never have known it existed..?

The people who want the game likely know of it already or will likely recieve word of it through word of mouth. Isn't that REALLY what's best for everyone? Haters get silenced, fans can still get their game through other means, nobody has the title pushed in their faces causing outrage...

How's that not a win/win/win for anyone but the developer who would probably like to see as much $$ flowing in as possible, hoping that both fans and people who become outraged by the game purchases it for the extra moolah?

[Tech614]

But thats the problem. You're basically agreeing that "Hatreds" problem is that its not established or a huge hit. That shouldn't make one murder game okay and another not okay. Either mass violence is wrong or it isn't.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, indeed. bend rules solely to make money. Okay.

You still have yet to address...

1) Manhunt 2 which is the far more controversial of the 2 games, and was censored on PS2 and uncensored on PC has never been picked up by steam.

2) The Goal in GTA is not to murder every ped you see. If we're using your logic we should ban every Elder Scrolls game as well, I mean you can kill all the NPCs if you choose to right? The difference in GTA and Elder Scrolls is they don't give you a mission or quest that says "Kill a bunch of random peds" to do so you have to do it of your own free will.

[Edge-]

But thats the problem. You're basically agreeing that "Hatreds" problem is that its not established or a huge hit. That shouldn't make one murder game okay and another not okay. Either mass violence is wrong or it isn't.

But that's not a "problem" in the sense of it being a strike against it, it's just the lack of a strike (or a number of them) in favor of it. It exists purely on its own merits and public perception right now, it can't be propped up by the things I listed above.

This is how everything works. If you have massive fanbases, respect, money, or some kind of combination of those, you can "get away" with far more than others can.

Yes, indeed. bend rules solely to make money. Okay.

What rule are they bending? And are the very creators of their own rules not allowed to change/alter/bend them as they see fit? I mean, it's their bloody company, their bloody platform, and their bloody rules. They get to decide what ends up on Steam and what doesn't at the end of the day, and they can use whatever arbitrary measures they want.

"It should be our choice"

What should be our choice? We should get to decide what retailers can or can't carry? We should decide whether we want to buy the game or not? We should decide whether retailers should be allowed to remove item at their discretion? I'm sorry but I think you're reading what you want to read into it because it's most definitely not clear.

...I thought it was pretty self explanatory that that option was in clear reference to consumers deciding what companies do and don't sell. Especially in its juxtaposition to the "companies have the right to choose" option, as comparing that to whether consumers should choose what they purchase makes absolutely no sense at all. Of course consumers have the bloody right to decide what they do or don't purchase, that's capitalism, baby.

I mean, to a certain extent they do through their purchase of items impacting what a store does and doesn't stock, but that's all they can do, influence. The company makes the decision at the end of the day.

[Pengalor]

Your line of reasoning "There's already a lot of bad stuff" (so we should allow anything and everything horrible to be published) is pretty moot as well.

That's like saying there's already bad drugs out there so legalize anything people want.

That's....not even close to what I said. What are you on about? My point was that tiptoeing on eggshells and censoring everything all for the purpose of avoiding the slight chance that someone who is mentally ill may or may not use that media as inspiration for some depraved, inhumane act is flat-out stupid since they could just as easily look at a tree and suddenly be inspired to kill people. They are mentally ill, the media has nothing to do with it.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

Yes, indeed. bend rules solely to make money. Okay.

You really think Valve is somehow bending rules by refusing to allow a product to be sold in their store? It is their store and they have the right to decide what products are in it.

[Tech614]

Pulling a game surely isnt making them any money.

You honestly think this game will make a dent in valve's wallet?

The negative publicity of being the only store to carry the game carries far more negatives then positives for Steam. Let's say the game doubled it's up votes and sold 26k copies in it's first month, steams 30% cut of that wouldn't even be noticeable in their line for the month. Then they have to deal with neagtive press for a game only they are selling and making very little money off of? Sounds like a smart business move... not.

[Edge-]

censoring

Who is censoring anything?

A company choosing not to stock/sell a game is not censorship. That's called business.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You still have yet to address...

1) Manhunt 2 which is the far more controversial of the 2 games, and was censored on PS2 and uncensored on PC has never been picked up by steam.

2) The Goal in GTA is not to murder every ped you see. If we're using your logic we should ban every Elder Scrolls game as well, I mean you can kill all the NPCs if you choose to right? The difference in GTA and Elder Scrolls is they don't give you a mission or quest that says "Kill a bunch of random peds" to do so you have to do it of your own free will.

Actually, those types of missions have existed in GTA games.

[Deleted]

Actually, those types of missions have existed in GTA games.

But they are not, and never will be, the sole content. It's about context more than anything. GTA offers context in your actions and explains why you're doing it. Hatred is just a free-for-all murder simulator. - A GOOD one, no doubt that I'm sure thousands of people will enjoy, but it IS what it IS..

[Pengalor]

Who is censoring anything?

A company choosing not to stock/sell a game is not censorship. That's called business.

Some sweet out-of-context cherry picking there....Maybe read what the other person was saying (essentially arguing that the game shouldn't even exist).

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

But that's not a "problem" in the sense of it being a strike against it, it's just the lack of a strike (or a number of them) in favor of it. It exists purely on its own merits and public perception right now, it can't be propped up by the things I listed above.

This is how everything works. If you have massive fanbases, respect, money, or some kind of combination of those, you can "get away" with far more than others can.



What rule are they bending? And are the very creators of their own rules not allowed to change/alter/bend them as they see fit? I mean, it's their bloody company, their bloody platform, and their bloody rules. They get to decide what ends up on Steam and what doesn't at the end of the day, and they can use whatever arbitrary measures they want.

You don;t see a problem with this? yes, I know thats how things work.. but you're fine with Valve applying these rules arbitrarily? Personally I won't play the game, but I surely don't respect these ambiguous, hit or miss types of rulings. So a game developer isn't rich... they should be punished more harshly than others?

My point being either violence is bad, or it isn't. If Valve only allows M or lower games, then allow M or lower games.

- - - Updated - - -

You really think Valve is somehow bending rules by refusing to allow a product to be sold in their store? It is their store and they have the right to decide what products are in it.

Where does this "THEY HAVE THE RIGHT!" stuff come from? I've never said they can't legally do what they did. I said it was morally wrong to bend rules and have ambiguous rules.

[zealo]

Actually, those types of missions have existed in GTA games.

Wasn't there a mission in GTA 2 where you go pick up people in a vehicle and drive them to a sausage factory to have them butchered? Was a long time since I played that game however, don't really recall the specifics.

[Tech614]

Actually, those types of missions have existed in GTA games.

Actually, no they haven't.

If you are referring to the "rampages" you are always killing armed combatants, not innocent pedestrians. Try again.

[Pengalor]

The problem with your statement is that it's not some random, round-about way that someone could connect "Really fucking great idea" with "Gunning down my neighbors" when they play a game that's sole purpose is to play out Eric Harris' wet fucking dreams.

Who cares? No sane person is going to play this game as say "Hmm, you know, I really want to go shoot up some random people today!" Someone who is actually 'on the edge' (as the other poster put it) is going to find inspiration from any game that involves shooting people (hell, this one isn't even first-person so it's quite a bit more disconnected then, say, Farcry 3/4 or your average CoD). You think a psycho cares about the narrative? No, all they care about is they are hurting 'people' that serve as an analog for those they want to hurt in real life.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

But they are not, and never will be, the sole content. It's about context more than anything. GTA offers context in your actions and explains why you're doing it. Hatred is just a free-for-all murder simulator. - A GOOD one, no doubt that I'm sure thousands of people will enjoy, but it IS what it IS..

Again, those exact types or missions exist. Many of the missions are about killing people. Some of them are just "kill X amount of people with X weapons"..

I just googled it.. GTA 5 has 35 "rampage" missions where the whole point of the mission is to kill as many people as you can with X weapon and infinite ammo.

[Edge-]

Some sweet out-of-context cherry picking there....Maybe read what the other person was saying (essentially arguing that the game shouldn't even exist).

My mistake, I thought you were still directly discussing Steam.

You don;t see a problem with this? yes, I know thats how things work.. but you're fine with Valve applying these rules arbitrarily? Personally I won't play the game, but I surely don't respect these ambiguous, hit or miss types of rulings. So a game developer isn't rich... they should be punished more harshly than others?

I'm saying this as someone who is quite looking forward to playing this game: Yes, I'm fine with Valve having the final word on what does and doesn't make it onto their platform. Just as I'm fine with any company choosing what they do or don't sell on their shelves/in their store. I may not agree with them all the time, but it's 100% their right. And it's my right to choose whether or not I shop somewhere or buy something based on how I perceive the company making and selling the producting.

My point being either violence is bad, or it isn't. If Valve only allows M or lower games, then allow M or lower games.

This is problematic. You've just placed violence into a black and white world, something that it absolutely doesn't exist in. Violence requires context to make sense of it.

One cannot equate the violence as portrayed in say, Spec Ops: The Line, to the violence portrayed in Postal, or the violence in Saints Row IV, or the violence in Final Fantasy 7, or the violence in Mario. Context matters.