Yes.Endoperez wrote:So you don't know Valve's stance, but oppose it?
http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/f ... 095469621/I didn't know the thread had 1k+ pages. Link?
And getting more by the minute.
Yes.Endoperez wrote:So you don't know Valve's stance, but oppose it?
http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/f ... 095469621/I didn't know the thread had 1k+ pages. Link?
Alright, then.Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:No it hasn't. You're grasping at straws.EPR89 wrote: You should really start reading what people are writing because this has been addressed, just like the censorship point.
Again. Read my refined view.A store deciding not to sell a specific product is not censorship. Especially if it is a private store. Valve can sell and not sell whatever they want, for whatever reason. We have brought up some of them here. Just because you don't want to accept them and rather be pissed about it does not make it censorship.
Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:I read through the last page of posts, not a single one talked about Valve's decision to pull the game being rational despite the fact it's a stupid business
Given how gamers feel about Steam and how non-gamers will probably never touch it, nothing is lost by bringing it onto the store.EPR89 wrote:Yeah, a company making business decisions to define its public image is pretty stupid, I guess...
Irrelevant. I was talking about whether they mentioned the percentage of people who want to purchase it and how any capitalist would be shitting their pants at the amount of money they gave up, and the amount of people (Hatred supporters or not) they pissed off.Endoperez wrote:
2 to 3 posts out of 50 or so showed some support for Valve's position.
So the consumer loses out againValve needs to make their criteria public and stand by them. Unfortunately it might mean Steam will stop selling certain types of violent games.
Sweet.They will be sold by other online stores. GamersGate the store might not want to touch Hatred because it'd make them the butt of GG jokes, but GoG is consideting Hatred it seems.
Sensitive peopleEndoperez wrote:I had a nice lunch break discussion about this. Some people thought Hatred is bad and Valve had the right to not have it in Steam,
Go on...some thought Valve is too powerful and has too strong of a stranglehold, one guy was saying that if a big name like EA had published Hatred it'd be on Steam no questions asked,
They are both right, and wrong.That is, no one thought feminism had anything to do with the issue at all.
Money isn't the only king.Phoenixwarrior141 wrote: how any capitalist would be shitting their pants at the amount of money they gave up, and the amount of people (Hatred supporters or not) they pissed off.
They didn't commit business suicide by any stretch the imagination, but they certainly didn't do the sane thing to do when you want to make more cash money. Especially with sales coming up.
Possibly, if there's no new marketplace, but I think it's better that the consumers lose, than that the developers lose. The consumers only lose their entertainment, after all. The developers might go bankrupt and lose their jobs, which is obviously much worse.So the consumer loses out againValve needs to make their criteria public and stand by them. Unfortunately it might mean Steam will stop selling certain types of violent games.
FemFreq has one too. What's so weird about a group - sorry, I obviously mean an individual using the name of a group without representing the group as a whole - having one?Speaking of GamerGate, they have a steam curator page. Weird.
We're talking business here. Don't you think it'd be insensitive to force Valve to publish all games on their platform without them having a say on it?Sensitive peopleEndoperez wrote:I had a nice lunch break discussion about this. Some people thought Hatred is bad and Valve had the right to not have it in Steam,
1. Actually people are rather famously AGAINST this stereotype. The whole "gamers are dead" extragavanza was about the gamer stereotype being old-fashioned in a way that fails to take into account how all sorts of people play gamesnow, and that games industry should be for and represent the society at large instead of just the stereotypical gamers.
The core of the issue isn't that games like Hatred are being made, it's the fact that these games don't have a right to exist in the eyes of some people.
The pretentious assholes generally follow 3 tenants and that is:
1: Games should be representative of gamers.
2: Games should be deep, meaningful and discussion worthy experiences.
3: Games that fail the second tenant, should be destroyed.
And yes, this is what most of the comments regarding Hatred seem to be when I browse the comments.
How is it greedy to give the consumers what they want, the developers a platform to sell their product and make some cash in the process?Endoperez wrote:
Money isn't the only king.
Following the biggest money isn't sanity, but greed. You have to balance greed against other things, such as ethics. I'm sure you agree that game industry could use more ethics.
But they would lose their jobs if you pull the game as well.
Possibly, if there's no new marketplace, but I think it's better that the consumers lose, than that the developers lose. The consumers only lose their entertainment, after all. The developers might go bankrupt and lose their jobs, which is obviously much worse.
Somewhat.
We're talking business here. Don't you think it'd be insensitive to force Valve to publish all games on their platform without them having a say on it?
1: You misinterpret me. I meant that the "Progressive" pompous pricks thinks that games should be artsy so gamers can seem artsy by proxy.1. Actually people are rather famously AGAINST this stereotype. The whole "gamers are dead" extragavanza was about the gamer stereotype being old-fashioned in a way that fails to take into account how all sorts of people play gamesnow, and that games industry should be for and represent the society at large instead of just the stereotypical gamers.
...2. Yes, absolutely!
I read this and ended up frothing at the mouth and twitching in a pool of my own jizz, piss and blood on my chair while images of a dystopian future flashed in front of my eyes while said eyes and ears were bleeding massive amounts of blood onto the floor below my chair.It would be amazing to have games like this! At the moment most of what we have is the equivalent of summer movies and popcorn flicks and some violent/gore/softcore stuff.
You misinterpreted me again. I meant that the pretentious gamers want games that aren't artsy and meaningful to be destroyed because they aren't.3. That's Jack Thompson, and.... I'm drawing a blank, here... Let's see there's that Polygon article about Hatred oh it's just "who thought this was a good idea?!"... Maybe GTA V oh I guess not they say glamourizing torture is crossing the line. Maybe the Target banning thing oh wait they didn't care about the game's plot.
Nope, I can't draw any reasonable connection between a game not being a deep and discussion-worthy and in that it should be destroyed.
I disagree. Games have more interaction between the work and the player. This results in more interpretation. This means that games as a medium are worse at exactly and precisely describing the author's intention, but better at creating a subjective experience.TheSlider wrote:Video games (or interactive software to be more inclusive) are an extraordinary medium that can be used to convey much more than any other medium out there.
I fail to see how being greedy in this situation is bad. Unless you think everyone should dislike the game and anyone who doesn't is bad. In which case.Endoperez wrote:Re: greed
You are asking if wanting to make money is greed. Obviously it is. It could be both sane and greedy. I think in this case it might be unethical and greedy.
I meant that by pulling the game you hurt the devs in one way or another.Re: devs losing jobs.
It happens.Re: misinterpretations
I have never seen or heard about these pretentious pricks who demand that all games submit to their wishes and become 'artsy'. Never.
Here's one now!Where could I find one, and do they ride unicorns?
They exist.Seriously, I have NEVER come across a SINGLE person saying that all games should be art games.
You're one of the few.I've made artsy games with people who make art games, and then we played Towerfall and made a Dark Souls -esque jam game.
And Hatred is going to shoot them all up and pistol whip the remains. Gamers should be doing the same thing.I like many of the things we have now, but I want something new and different. Papers, Please is new and exciting. Gone Home and Dear Esther and That Dragon, Cancer are paving way for new games that are emotionally powerful.
And watching them get shot up like the millions of cops in Hatred will be just as exciting.Soon they will be surpassed in everything from mechanics to style, and they'll be the first ones of a genre that hadn't yet taken shape. I'm seeing the first Arkanoids, the first Pac-mans, Asteroids, the Rogue of roguelikes being born. It's exciting!
To my knowledge none of them have gameplay.The Ur-quan Masters is Asteroids with world map and early-90s adventure game dialog system. It's the precursor to Mass Effect. Gone Home and Dear Esther have FPS elements, but I don't know when we will see the game that does to them what UQM did for Asteroids.
Because it did. These games are what's cancer to the medium. Nothing else.. For example, you just said that me liking the idea of a game you don't like makes you physically ill.