Steam started going down this path the moment it was born. There wasn't any one "thing" that caused it to go Full Capitalism. Gabe kept talking about how he was gonna do this and that we let him because it had the benefit of being consumer friendly.
Steam started going down this path the moment it was born. There wasn't any one "thing" that caused it to go Full Capitalism. Gabe kept talking about how he was gonna do this and that we let him because it had the benefit of being consumer friendly.
Steam has is now the Wild West of PC, anything goes as long as money is being made.Man I am old... Back than if your game is on steam it means you made it...
Hateful ideologies need to be actively fought by everyone with the decency to reject those ideologies. Steam allowing Nazi games on Steam isn't them endorsing it, but it still very much has the same effect of those ideologies being given a platform to spread, so there's really no difference.
You'd imagine FB, Twitter and such becoming cesspools of hate that literally cause pain, death and destruction to countless people worldwide due to the exact same "we don't want to limit freedom of speech" rhetoric would have made that clear but apparently not.
No, the intent behind it is what's important. AIDS Simulator is not a game with any serious message (it's repugnant, but for "lulz").So basically, in order to qualify as genuine hate speech, the game would need to promote racism and have high production values? If a game has low production values and promotes racism, it's just considered trolling.
I don't agree with eurogamer. It's the best decision ever. As far as something is legal, the player is the only one who should decide what to play. As many people said before... don't you like? Then create a storefront.
As many people said before... don't you like? Then create a storefront.
Steam started going down this path the moment it was born. There wasn't any one "thing" that caused it to go Full Capitalism. Gabe kept talking about how he was gonna do this and that we let him because it had the benefit of being consumer friendly.
No I'm not into this kind of games and people can filter them but I'm into some japanese games that were advised to get banned.And how is it the "best decision ever"? Because you can find these racist filled games even easier?
I hate to drag Jim Sterling's videos into these things, as I feel his closeness to the matter can often mean he fires off rather heated responses, but he brought up a rather interesting point in regards to retail. When you go to Walmart, you can't just plunk whatever you want on the shelves and sell it. And if it comes out that generic food product #300 has literal nails in it, Walmart doesn't just shrug and tell you that it's your responsibility to know better. They can stock a thing that tastes bad or breaks easily, but the moment it becomes harmful, a sensible retailer will yank that shit off the shelves. Your reputation as a market is dependent on a trust with your audience to some extent, and while I'm not telling Steam to not have trash games, if something is broken in the box, malware or literal hatespeech, it's not all that sensible to let it clog your airwaves is it? Frankly, it probably scares off more business than it attracts.
And look, as liberal, soap boxy as I can get I still think AIDS Simulator has a right to exist. It, however, doesn't have a right to sit on the shelves of Best Buy.
There is nowhere they say or imply this.-They'll judge games that aren't illegal on a case-by-case basis. For the record, going by past post, Valve consider "asset flip" games, games with promoting hate in them, exploiting children, etc., to be under illegal and trolling, they've used the same terminology a few times in the past in reference to these issues. They warn they aren't completely organized yet, so during the next few months as they set up their new systems there still may be cases they respond slower than people may like, and in the end they may not remove every game people personally find disgusting as they're only removing whay breaks the law and their TOS. They never say they're changing their policies on games with hate, child exploitation, stolen assets, etc.
What I find pretty arrogant is this article, and its content pretty ridiculous. Especially this is a high point of ludicrous:
"Yes, game creators have a right to free speech, to make games on any topic they like, as transgressive and offensive as the law allows. But they do not have a right to publish these games on Steam. For Valve to confuse these two things is a deluded fallacy"
It's Valve that decides who has the right to publish their games on Steam. And they did.
LOL what do you think is the reason that EA, Blizzard, Activision are making their own online services??I definitely agree with Eurogamer here. No one with a brain would think Steam's new approach is in anyway moral. Trashy games have been hitting Steam for a while now, but they did nothing to stop that. The reason for all of this? It's all about managing resources and increasing profits. It's so much cheaper to have no vetting process at all like it is now. It's so much more money to let people spend money on trashy games. There are many traps and very cheap cash grabs out there. Steam just became the problem. I am definitely will try to buy all my games outside of Steam from now on. It might not be possible to avoid all purchases, but I have been noticing that game publishers have started making their own online services.
I agree completely. This article and articles like it are indicative of their own deluded trend of sort reeking of entitlement and a total misunderstanding of reality. These companies were never our "friends" they were just the corners where we copped. So to speak.
And how is it the "best decision ever"? Because you can find these racist filled games even easier?
The water of 'Hey, Marky, please solve this problem if you can pretty please cause we can't that's for sure' ain't that hot.I believe they're referring to the hot water these companies are in for their neutrality on hate movements, fake news, etc., appearing on their platforms.
Thank you Valve for not giving in to the Looney left, let me pick the games I want.
Thank you Valve for not giving in to the Looney left, let me pick the games I want.
I was being quite clear. Eurogamer does not seem to know the difference between ethics and morality. It's a problem in a lot of the reaction articles to Steam's new move.
What I find pretty arrogant is this article, and its content pretty ridiculous. Especially this is a high point of ludicrous:
"Yes, game creators have a right to free speech, to make games on any topic they like, as transgressive and offensive as the law allows. But they do not have a right to publish these games on Steam. For Valve to confuse these two things is a deluded fallacy"
It's Valve that decides who has the right to publish their games on Steam. And they did.
I mean, that was pretty blatant dogwhistling. I was going to start answering other quotes (I started even) but I saw that and well...if the shoe fits... Like "Loony Left"? Really?
Ms.is doing it....but as valve use their ownership to do their things ppl will accept the owner of the entire platform windows to do theirs?I don't agree with eurogamer. It's the best decision ever. As far as something is legal, the player is the only one who should decide what to play. As many people said before... don't you like? Then create a storefront.
Thank you Valve for not giving in to the Looney left, let me pick the games I want.
Exactly. This entire demonizing of valve is just getting silly at this point.What I find pretty arrogant is this article, and its content pretty ridiculous. Especially this is a high point of ludicrous:
"Yes, game creators have a right to free speech, to make games on any topic they like, as transgressive and offensive as the law allows. But they do not have a right to publish these games on Steam. For Valve to confuse these two things is a deluded fallacy"
It's Valve that decides who has the right to publish their games on Steam. And they did.
What confuses me with arguments like this is...
How many racist/sexist/anti-LGBTQ games do people think there are going to be? The "asset flip" style games where the point is just killing minorities will still be kicked out on grounds of trolling. The "anti SJW" games that are sexist anti-feminist trash are still going to be kicked out on grounds of trolling. There's really only going to be more of these games on Steam if they're well-produced and appear valid - something like, say, Agony. Non-troll games aren't suddenly going to magic into existence overnight, because they're video-games - they take time(™). And the games that are trolling won't have a place anyway.
Yeah, Amiablepercy's post that you replied to isn't dog-whistling.
I mean, that was pretty blatant dogwhistling. I was going to start answering other quotes (I started even) but I saw that and well...if the shoe fits... Like "Loony Left"? Really?
Well-written, scathing piece. The ones disagreeing seem to have blinders on and follow only the games space. We've already seen the type of hate and abuse that grows when platform owners decide to step away. Valve is absolutely running away from their responsibilities and for that they should be criticized. It's cowardly, wishy-washy trash.
Yes, sticking to the principle of having no principles.Very well said. I am so glad that Valve is sticking to their principles.
Which of the aids simulators that valve would have previously blocked are you now enjoying because of this change then?
designed to do nothing but generate outrage and cause conflict through its existence
I mean, we already have problems with these games like Agony or because a director is infamous for his views (Kingdom Come) to games which a clearly built with the alt right in mind (That cyberpunk game that was trying to argue that SJW's were making a dystopian future where being a man was wrong or that pick-up artist game). This stuff will allow even worse examples of this to show up because of the lack of curation.
designed to do nothing but generate outrage and cause conflict through its existence
People saying stuff you dont like so you just dismiss it as "dogwhistling"? and with a fucking picture nonetheless.If you're trying to copy me in an attempt to annoy me, it's not really working. I've already corrected myself on one of the people who wasn't dogwhistling.
yes but, problem is, you can not do something right or wrong when there is not guidelines to say when something is right or not. curating in this case, veto the game that will be illegal, is a process 100% based on the curator moral compass. and as such there will never be a right or wrong answer to satisfy both side, so why put yourself in that position when there are other options to let the end user itself be the own curator of his own experience???
Many film-makers, photographers, writers are problematic, but that does not mean that their works are consistently banned from sale
Not being allowed on Steam is not even close to being banned from sale on the open pc market.
Lolwat?I find it interesting that the support FOR censorship is so strong.
If you find something offensive, then push to make it illegal. Then Steam would block it.
If you don't like something, but it isn't yet illegal, then it is not Steam's problem that you are offended.
All this just proves that many people genuinely think their personal preferences are the ideal perfect arbiters of right and wrong. And that their own views are allegedly universal across the planet.
Like the poster in this thread talking about the case of a pro-Nazi game? That's literally illegal in Germany, and Steam would block such a game. If you want such a game to be blocked elsewhere, then push to make it illegal in your country of choice.
At this point I have accepted that literally hundreds of thousands of people think their own opinions are essentially word of God and that if they are disgusted about something, it should not exist. Nevermind that the hundreds of thousands of people have contradictory views of what should or should not be banned. The idea that there might be more than one preference, and that such a thing isn't going to destroy the world, is lost to these people.
Making Steam ban things that are perfectly legal but you personally dislike, is such an arrogant position that it is sad. And I am especially upset to see that ZhugeEX appear to have taken up that position according to his twitter retweets. I guess consider his familiar stance with China's censorship, that it is bizarre to him why Steam wouldn't control its store with an iron fist and ban anything it feels like banning.
There's nothing wrong with Kingdom Come as a video game besides its technical jankiness. But I don't know anything about the other two games you're referencingI mean, we already have problems with these games like Agony or because a director is infamous for his views (Kingdom Come) to games which a clearly built with the alt right in mind (That cyberpunk game that was trying to argue that SJW's were making a dystopian future where being a man was wrong or that pick-up artist game). This stuff will allow even worse examples of this to show up because of the lack of curation.
Yes, game creators have a right to free speech, to make games on any topic they like, as transgressive and offensive as the law allows. But they do not have a right to publish these games on Steam.
That is a game that falls under the "trolling" category (from a well-documented troll developer of tons of garbage games), which is forbidden under both current and future rules.
True hate speech has yet to be tested, and cannot until the rules change (which Valve says will occur at some unspecified future point). Valve continues to enforce the existing rules (first of which is forbidding hate speech), as they specifically say in the blog.
People saying stuff you dont like so you just dismiss it as "dogwhistling"? and with a fucking picture nonetheless.
Why dont you say what you really mean and call them racist bigots? stop dogwhistling.
Thank you Valve for not giving in to the Looney left, let me pick the games I want.
You mean those games that have just been blocked and will almost certainly continue to be blocked because they're
Rebut my argument then: Tell me how this change will mean there's going to be more and "worse examples" when Valve themselves are saying games that are (again)
are going to be kicked from Steam.
And, btw, what you're generally arguing for is a broad amount of creative censorship which in any other industry would be frowned upon. Many film-makers, photographers, writers are problematic, but that does not mean that their works are consistently banned from sale. Other mediums do just-fine separating art from artist, so gaming should step-up and do the same, if possible.
(Aside: Phew, there were quite a few typos there!)