How does everyone feel about Valve pulling 'Hatred' from Greenlight?

[digitaldurandal]

And the point of those games isn't to go around and murder innocents just because you have a chip on your shoulder.

Have you ever played Postal 1? I am guessing not by your comment.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Killing is the point of Hatred. There's no other goal in the game. In games like CoD, BF or RPG games (or any other sane game), you have a goal (save someone, kill a bad guy, conquer the world, something) and the game puts enemies on your path you need to dispose of to reach your goal. It's either them (game over for you) or you (move to next objective/win). This makes a huge difference, I don't understand how can this be not understood? As an example, one of the CoD games had a section where you had to kill innocent people on an airport. This was crossing the line for me. There is never any reason to kill innocent people and making it a goal for the player is sickening for me. Even if it's just a game.

How do you feel about Postal? It has not been removed from the store.

Also, I disagree with you on many of these points. My first statement would be that in COD one of the popular modes is death match, er actually in nearly every multiplayer FPS, the goal is literally to kill.

You mentioned that CoD crossed a line for you, do you think it should be censored?

I would like to note that as you stated it is just a game, none of these are actual people, they are a set of variables in a game engine.

 

[Bateluer]

I had the unfortunate luck to live in a county where censorship was part of every day (I'm Polish, same as Hatred developers). I was too young to understand this when it was still around, but my parents and grandparents remember it very well and the topic is discussed often when we meet.

So why exactly are you advocating for censorship now, from developers in your home country?

GabeN did exactly what he should have done, and I expect there's probably a couple managers under him that got a closed door lecture.

 

[alkemyst]

Like a previous poster said, killing is killing no matter how you look at it. Whether you split a guys head open because he came at you with a knife, or whether you split a guys head open for no reason what so ever, hes dead. The aftermath is the same, the only thing that changes is the reason. If it makes you sick to kill an innocent computer a.i vs one that's shooting at you with a gun then I think you might have deep psychological issues that are triggering these feelings.

No it is not. This is the belief of the armchair psychologist (sociopath?) though.

Space Invaders was killing. No where on the level as what Hatred is promoting.

I personally have no problem with it for adults. However; this will be a game given to kids...I can guarantee that.

The whole premise of Hatred is to kill everyone and do it brutally. COD/Military games are not in that same context. They aren't over the top graphic. You can't put a shotgun into someone's mouth and blow their brains against a wall nor take your KABAR and behead them.

Of course our members will fight this to the death that it's really no different than shooting aliens in 1980-90's video games.

 

[Subyman]

These days, a game pulled from Steam will lose the bulk of its sales. Especially from a relatively unknown developer. Its financially damning.

Valve never claimed to be the arbiter of game development fairness. I think people are slinging around censorship as if it carries more weight than it does. Government censorship is a major issue, private party censorship is not. Every business in the US practices private party censorship. It is one of the great reasons why the government does not need to institute a universal censorship policy. We, the public, police ourselves and having an offensive product on the shelf can damage sales, so companies preemptively choose not to carry it.

The game is now back up there anyway.

 

[Anubis]

censorship of any kind is wrong
they should not have pulled the game

 

[alkemyst]

What's funny is some of you seem to want censorship in things here even?

People are OK with things until it goes against them.

 

[Elixer]

Frankly, this was a colossal mess caused by Valve itself.

The content of the game didn't switch when they allowed it.

Valve blew it, if they want to become a nanny site, where they tell you what THEY think you should play, so be it, at least be open about it, and then people can vote with their $$$.

What is next, Valve including a timer into steam, that only allows you to play 30 mins at a time ? How about banning all pixel guns, since "guns are bad!" Or any other PC crap they can think of.

Did anyone read the ToS of greenlight that specifically forbids what this game did ?

*edit.. well, what do you know...
http://www.bluesnews.com/s/157521/valve-apologizes-as-hatred-greenlight-campaign-returns

Hi, Jaroslaw.

Yesterday I heard that we were taking Hatred down from Greenlight. Since I wasn’t up to speed, I asked around internally to find out why we had done that. It turns out that it wasn’t a good decision, and we’ll be putting Hatred back up. My apologies to you and your team. Steam is about creating tools for content creators and customers.

Good luck with your game.
Gabe

 

[Dumac]

And the point of those games isn't to go around and murder innocents just because you have a chip on your shoulder.

Can you go around killing innocents in those games? Absolutely.

Is it the point of those games? No, not at all.

Somebody hasn't played postal 1.

 

[Dankk]

Game is now #1 on Greenlight:

 

[alkemyst]

Is it for sale or just voted up by those looking to download it illegally?

 

[StrangerGuy]

Is it for sale or just voted up by those looking to download it illegally?

It's called the Streisand Effect

 

[Artorias]

You know the only reason I think this game is back on the market is because Valve is privately owned, no way a publically traded company would ever put this back on the shelf.

Valve is really endorsing the wild west idea when it comes to what's put on their store, its good, and also bad in that there are a lot of useless junk games as well.

I'm glad they don't give a fuck to be honest, it great that Gabe believes in the free market.

Though the game isn't my cup of tea, I did play Hotline Miami which was an ultra violent game too, but I cant help but feel uneasy when watching this games trailer.

 

[Nebor]

I've never voted for anything on Steam Greenlight before, but I just voted for this.

 

[alkemyst]

It's called the Streisand Effect

Thanks, I forgot I knew this already.

However; I don't think this game falls in the same category. People already wanted it.

 

[Bateluer]

Game is now #1 on Greenlight:

All pulling it did was give the developers a crap load of free publicity. They'd better make sure the game isn't a bug ridden mess.

 

[KeithP]

As an example, one of the CoD games had a section where you had to kill innocent people on an airport.

I didn't play the game but if the wiki is correct, you are misinformed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2

Although the player is technically allied with the terrorists, they are not forced to kill any of the civilians themselves to fulfill the mission's objectives.

-KeithP

 

[Jodell88]

All pulling it did was give the developers a crap load of free publicity. They'd better make sure the game isn't a bug ridden mess.

All they have to do is release it in better condition than Ubisoft's games this year.

Ubisoft can't even make a game of Tetris for the PS4 without it hitching all over the place.

 

[Subyman]

censorship of any kind is wrong
they should not have pulled the game

Yup walmart should carry porn, so should Toys R Us. No censorship.

 

[taserbro]

Yup walmart should carry porn, so should Toys R Us. No censorship.

There's a difference between a store that usually carries games pulling a game as a white flag to outside political influence and stores not carrying items that thematically don't fit their audience group to begin with. Bowing to this kind of pressure is setting the kind of precedents that will empower those who have an interest in controlling what people read watch and play to make more draconian demands in the future. Also, pulling GTA from the shelves of one retail store will not prevent much of anyone from buying and playing the game at all so you know the objective wasn't that but rather to expand the influence of the "think of the children/women" tactic.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where the national-committee-of-malcontent-soccer-moms-against-practically-everything-new could make stores stop selling what they don't approve or cancel movies they don't like and I don't think I'd be that wrong to assume you wouldn't want that either. The people making the censorship argument are simply trying to show that this is the first notch of fire setting on the stove where the frog is being boiled slowly.

 

[sweenish]

Yup walmart should carry porn, so should Toys R Us. No censorship.

Interesting counter, but misguided a bit. If Walmart decided to only ban one R rated movie, but keep the others, you'd have a comparison.

Steam already has a ton of very violent games on their shelves, along with a few "dating sims" that are about as close to the line as you get.

Again, I know they are free to do what they choose. I also wouldn't play this game.

It's still a very slippery slope for them. This game is much less removed from GTA and Postal and CoD and most horror games than it initially seems.

I get that in this game, the whole point is killing innocent people. But in GTA you can hire a hooker, do the deed, pay them, kill them, and take your money back. Is it really so different? The whole point of the GTA series is making a name for yourself by committing heinous acts of violence, often times against the police with many civilian casualties. It's not that different.

People keep coming back to "but that's not the point of GTA," and they're half right in that killing the hookers is optional. But who plays GTA and doesn't rampage at least once? Everyone does it. Saying it's not the point of the game actually strengthens the other side if you ever did any of the optional violence. It wasn't the point, but you did it anyway. Likely with a tank. And there's still the fact that "the point" of GTA is to make a name for yourself by committing heinous acts of violence.

The overly sensitive about video game violence would have a doozy in their arsenal that would lend their arguments more credence, and I don't want that.