Support NeoGAF

[BolognaOni]

Never thought I'd be nostalgic for review bombs over dedicated servers...

 

[Temeculan3000]

There's nothing hypocritical about it. They don't like him because he is a terrible subhuman. They are 100% within their legal rights to terminate his ability to make money off of their game for this reason, which has no bearing on the hundreds of others who aren't (yet) known to be the same as PDP. Not even close to comparable.

Again, it goes against the spirit of the law. If they believe that let's plays are infringing on their copyright, then they should DCMA all lets plays.

If however they have granted licenses to streamers to make lets play's, then they are absolutely within their rights to withhold or revoke licenses to streamers they don't like. If those streamers did let's plays anyway, they can issue DCMA takedown requests.

The DCMA does not protect non-racists from stealing copyrighted works.

 

[Hilbert]

Racism exists in the world should I kill myself now to avoid the disappointment in humanity?

how about speak up, try to make things better and expect the same of your video game storefronts?

Stopping Nazi groups is a really basic level or morality we should be expecting of ...everyone

 

[thefil]

I guess the question is the motivation. A DMCA takedown request is made to prevent someone from infringing on your copyrighted work. Why did they allow him to do that for so long, and only now remove it? Well they admit it is because of his racist actions. So does that mean they are ok with non-racists infringing on their copyrights?

While I think they are within their rights to do this, as you can make a good argument that let's plays don't fall into fair use, it seems slightly hypocritical to allow lets plays to infringe on your copyrighted work unless you don't like the person doing the lets play.

Yes, they are okay with non-racists infringing on their copyright, for mutually beneficial purpose (advertisement for them, revenue for the video maker). That is a good stance to have. They were totally within their legal and ethical rights to revoke that whenever they wish. Let's Plays are really not protected. Allowing their stuff to be used for any reason is within their purview and revoking the license was totally fair and a brave thing to do. Why would it be hypocritical to terminate a business relationship when you no longer like the other person?

 

[Ganado]

That's called consumer rights. Although in the case of Firewatch, it's getting a terrible use, it actually got a great use for Batman Arkham Knight.

Don't forget the GTA V mod debacle.

 

[M°°nblade]

Yes

Well, that's not better in my opinion.

If an online community can't do better than censure or ban everything that's slightly offendable or political incorrect in order to avoid conflicts and controversity among members, to me that means gaming communities still have a long way to go before getting called 'mature'.

I'd say leaving it to the developers to decide how to handle their own communities is the best approach Valve could take.

 

[CecilRousso]

how about speak up, try to make things better and expect the same of your video game storefronts?

So....not what the article author did then, by deleting the account?

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

I didn't even take this into account, but it just reaffirms my preference of just owning the game itself without all this superfluous bullshit. Steam (and similar "services" from competitors) continue to be this uncalled for thing shoving themselves between you and the games you buy.

 

[chrominance]

I guess the question is the motivation. A DMCA takedown request is made to prevent someone from infringing on your copyrighted work. Why did they allow him to do that for so long, and only now remove it? Well they admit it is because of his racist actions. So does that mean they are ok with non-racists infringing on their copyrights?

While I think they are within their rights to do this, as you can make a good argument that let's plays don't fall into fair use, it seems slightly hypocritical to allow lets plays to infringe on your copyrighted work unless you don't like the person doing the lets play.

Now if they had explicitly granted PDP license to do the let's play, and decided to revoke it, then common sense would say they would contact him and inform him that the license was revoked and to remove the videos within a reasonable timeline, and if he does not they will DMCA them down. If they had an existing agreement it wouldn't make sense to jump straight to DMCA without informing him first. Again, this only applies if they did have some sort of agreement with him in place.

I am not making a big deal out of this, they were within their rights to do it. But it did seem to go against the intention of the DMCA and slightly hypocritical.

As the copyright owner you are generally free to give explicit or implicit license to anyone you want for whatever reason you what. The definition of copyright infringement is using a copyrighted work in a way not permitted by the copyright owner, so essentially there is absolutely nothing wrong with Campo Santo allowing Let's Plays and then deciding they didn't want to do that anymore, or with one specific person. Copyright holders are not required to aggressively protect their rights from everyone.

You MIGHT be able to make a case that the ability to assign or withhold copyright clashes with anti-discrimination law, MAYBE (i.e. if a developer said "only white people may make Let's Play videos using my work"). I am not a lawyer so I have no idea how this plays out in practice or in theory. Regardless, that is clearly not what is going on here, and there are obvious cases where only certain people or groups of people are granted certain rights to a work (ex. I pay someone money, and now I get a license to copy or resell their work).

 

[Kinyou]

Firewatch forums from a couple days ago.

No doubt that shit like this wouldn't happen if people were losing their account for something like this.

 

[thefil]

Again, it goes against the spirit of the law. If they believe that let's plays are infringing on their copyright, then they should DCMA all lets plays.

If however they have granted licenses to streamers to make lets play's, then they are absolutely within their rights to withhold or revoke licenses to streamers they don't like. If those streamers did let's plays anyway, they can issue DCMA takedown requests.

The DCMA does not protect non-racists from stealing copyrighted works.

Must Campo Santo make decisions only according to law? In that case, they should disallow all Let's Plays. But I'm sure in your day-to-day life, you hold all people equally accountable to one set of rules? If you invite one person into your home, you invite the whole world?

By not taking down let's plays, they have implicitly issued licences to those streamers. And therefore they can explicitly revoke them.

*edit* chrominance said it better above

 

[Portugeezer]

Soon only racist trolls will use Steam, you should be ashamed if you still use Steam.

 

[KageMaru]

This is one of the reasons I don't understand the die hard devotion to Steam. Valve really needs to start giving a fuck.

 

[Temeculan3000]

Yes, they are okay with non-racists infringing on their copyright, for mutually beneficial purpose (advertisement for them, revenue for the video maker). That is a good stance to have. They were totally within their legal and ethical rights to revoke that whenever they wish. Let's Plays are really not protected. Allowing their stuff to be used for any reason is within their purview and revoking the license was totally fair and a brave thing to do. Why would it be hypocritical to terminate a business relationship when you no longer like the other person?

Not at all, the question is this: Was there an existing business relationship between them?

As I said before, if they grant licenses to lets play streamers, they can grant or deny/revoke those licenses at their discretion.

If they do not grant licenses, they don't get to decide what is and isn't infringement. Either the lets plays are infringing or they are not. What they do get to decide is who they want to DMCA.

Again, I am fine with their actions, but I am just pointing out it is a little bit hypocritical. That's all. Not saying they deserved review bombs.

 

[CheesecakeRecipe]

Again, it goes against the spirit of the law. If they believe that let's plays are infringing on their copyright, then they should DCMA all lets plays.

If however they have granted licenses to streamers to make lets play's, then they are absolutely within their rights to withhold or revoke licenses to streamers they don't like. If those streamers did let's plays anyway, they can issue DCMA takedown requests.

The DCMA does not protect non-racists from stealing copyrighted works.

They are well within their rights to terminate it for whatever reason they see fit. Just because they did it for one person for a very specific reason does not mean they have to do it for all. I don't know what 'spirit of law' you're talking about, because it does not exist.

EDIT: Chrominance's post about it is a must-read.

 

[CecilRousso]

I didn't even take this into account, but it just reaffirms my preference of just owning the game itself without all this superfluous bullshit. Steam (and similar "services" from competitors) continue to be this uncalled for thing shoving themselves between you and the games you buy.

Just getting an installer be able to be done with is of course the most consumer friendly alternative (that's why I also buy a lot of games from GOG), but people tend to how awful a lot of things with PC games was before Steam, and that without it, we would either have had a much less attractive games platform and/or a similiar alternative to Steam.

Nothing for us would have been better if something like Games for Windows Live had been the victorious champion.

 

[GhostTrick]

Soon only racist trolls will use Steam, you should be ashamed if you still use Steam.

I can't tell if it's sarcasm and it's worrying.

 

[Hilbert]

Well, that's not better in my opinion.

If an online community can't do better than censure or ban everything that's slightly offendable or political incorrect in order to avoid conflicts and controversity among members, to me that means gaming communities still have a long way to go before getting called 'mature'.

I'd say leaving it to the developers to decide how to handle their own communities is the best approach Valve could take.

Slightly offendable:

So....not what the article author did then, by deleting the account?

he is speaking out about it, and expecting more for the store.

I honestly have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Jaguar Victory]

Racism exists in the world should I kill myself now to avoid the disappointment in humanity?

So you think it's ok to give it a forum in video games to normalize the behavior with a younger leaning demographic?

 

[RionaaM]

Well, that's not better in my opinion.

If an online community can't do better than censure or ban everything that's slightly offendable or political incorrect in order to avoid conflicts and controversity among members, to me that means gaming communities still have a long way to go before getting called 'mature'.

I'd say leaving it to the developers to decide how to handle their own communities is the best approach Valve could take.

This is true. Which is exactly why forums should be properly moderated.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

This is one of the reasons I don't understand the die hard devotion to Steam. Valve really needs to start giving a fuck.

Yup. It's really not that big of a deal to use multiple competing digital storefronts and services.

 

[Phawx]

This looks like it makes a mockery of slavery by turning it into a Tetris game.

This is not how you educate people on slavery.

Looking at their other games and seeing that they removed this mini-game, it's clear that Serious Games Interactive had the best intentions and weren't openly trying to mock slavery.

The thing is, when I look at that image, I see inhumane treatment of people wrapped in a game that could be presented to children. Children playing this in a school setting guided by a teacher could help them have more empathy by interactively treating people as puzzle pieces to fit in a space efficiently.

People playing this game *should* be uncomfortable.

If you are uncomfortable seeing this image, congratulations! You're a decent human-being.

I haven't played the game at all, so I have to reserve judgement on if it's actually worthwhile. A picture alone shouldn't be the single issue for demanding it's removal. Everyone should be OPEN to uncomfortable parts of our history and being able to explore that (even in an interactive-medium) to become better people.

You have to be kidding. You need a game to tell you that being sold like property and chained to the hull of a ship for a 2+ month journey is inhumane?

Whoa! That is a loaded question if I ever saw one! Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Also it is extremely insulting to suggest what you are saying.

No, no videogame will ever "showcase how inhumane the slave trade was". Even a "tasteful" videogame couldn't do that. It's the same reason why I argue against VR games of the holocaust.

Why? Why can't we explore uncomfortable things in games?

 

[CecilRousso]

he is speaking out about it, and expecting more for the store.

I honestly have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

The article's name? The athours actions described in it? His attempt to guilt people into doing the same thing?

The post you quoted was a sarcastic comparisons to those parts of the article and OP.

No one is saying that it's wrong to speak up about the bad things happening on the platform, or calls for Valve do to more.

 

[Temeculan3000]

They are well within their rights to terminate it for whatever reason they see fit. Just because they did it for one person for a very specific reason does not mean they have to do it for all. I don't know what 'spirit of law' you're talking about, because it does not exist.

They are well within their rights to terminate a license to do a lets play, I agree. But was there a license granted? Or were they just allowing lets plays before because they are fine with them?

Either they think lets plays are infringing or they don't. If they don't think they are infringing they shouldn't issue a DMCA takedown request even if they don't like the guy.

If they do think they are infringing, but only want to allow certain people to do them. They should grant license to do them, while issuing takedowns for those without license.

Point is this: If you believe someone is legally using your content, you should not abuse the DMCA to punish them.

As the copyright owner you are generally free to give explicit or implicit license to anyone you want for whatever reason you what. The definition of copyright infringement is using a copyrighted work in a way not permitted by the copyright owner, so essentially there is absolutely nothing wrong with Campo Santo allowing Let's Plays and then deciding they didn't want to do that anymore, or with one specific person. Copyright holders are not required to aggressively protect their rights from everyone.

You MIGHT be able to make a case that the ability to assign or withhold copyright clashes with anti-discrimination law, MAYBE (i.e. if a developer said "only white people may make Let's Play videos using my work"). I am not a lawyer so I have no idea how this plays out in practice or in theory. Regardless, that is clearly not what is going on here, and there are obvious cases where only certain people or groups of people are granted certain rights to a work (ex. I pay someone money, and now I get a license to copy or resell their work).

Yeah I didn't want to bring up the discrimination thing for fear of being labeled a racist defender, but I was curious if they only denied copyright to a certain group of steamers if they could get hit with a lawsuit.

And yeah, perhaps just making a statement in general that they are fine with let's plays, but reserve the right to revoke your copyright is enough. And in that case they are revoking it for PDP and that is fine.

I guess my point was more general, if you are issuing a DMCA because you think Let's Plays in general are infringement then it is hypocritical to only apply that only certain people.

 

[Hilbert]

The article's name? The athours actions described in it? His attempt to guilt people into doing the same thing?

The post you quoted was a sarcastic comparisons to those parts of the article and OP.

No one is saying that it's wrong to speak up about the bad things happening on the platform, or calls for Valve do to more.

You are making no sense. Please stop responding to me until you do.

 

[Easy_D]

If Neo-Fucking-GAF can be moderated in a rather successful manner, where the mods don't get anything out of it (other than keep a community they enjoy tidy), I'm sure Valve with its billions can get on the fucking moderation train.
Fuck, I'm sure there are plenty of alright people who'd do it for free lmao. It's just Valve being lazy fucks as usual.

 

[CheesecakeRecipe]

They are well within their rights to terminate a license to do a lets play, I agree. But was there a license granted? Or were they just allowing lets plays before because they are fine with them?

Either they think lets plays are infringing or they don't. If they don't think they are infringing they shouldn't issue a DMCA takedown request even if they don't like the guy.

If they do think they are infringing, but only want to allow certain people to do them. They should grant license to do them, while issuing takedowns for those without license.

Point is this: If you believe someone is legally using your content, you should not abuse the DMCA to punish them.

I'd highly recommend reading this post, which highlights exactly why you're wrong:

As the copyright owner you are generally free to give explicit or implicit license to anyone you want for whatever reason you what. The definition of copyright infringement is using a copyrighted work in a way not permitted by the copyright owner, so essentially there is absolutely nothing wrong with Campo Santo allowing Let's Plays and then deciding they didn't want to do that anymore, or with one specific person. Copyright holders are not required to aggressively protect their rights from everyone.

You MIGHT be able to make a case that the ability to assign or withhold copyright clashes with anti-discrimination law, MAYBE (i.e. if a developer said "only white people may make Let's Play videos using my work"). I am not a lawyer so I have no idea how this plays out in practice or in theory. Regardless, that is clearly not what is going on here, and there are obvious cases where only certain people or groups of people are granted certain rights to a work (ex. I pay someone money, and now I get a license to copy or resell their work).

Well, that's not better in my opinion.

If an online community can't do better than censure or ban everything that's slightly offendable or political incorrect in order to avoid conflicts and controversity among members, to me that means gaming communities still have a long way to go before getting called 'mature'.

I'd say leaving it to the developers to decide how to handle their own communities is the best approach Valve could take.

The fact that you think allowing racist, misogynistic and otherwise vile beliefs to run rampant and potentially harm others equates to 'mature' community shows how utterly divorced from reality you are.

 

[CecilRousso]

You are making no sense. Please stop responding to me until you do.

You're not making much more sense you, so yeah let's part.

 

[KageMaru]

Yes, they are okay with non-racists infringing on their copyright, for mutually beneficial purpose (advertisement for them, revenue for the video maker). That is a good stance to have. They were totally within their legal and ethical rights to revoke that whenever they wish. Let's Plays are really not protected. Allowing their stuff to be used for any reason is within their purview and revoking the license was totally fair and a brave thing to do. Why would it be hypocritical to terminate a business relationship when you no longer like the other person?

This. I have no issue with some level of moderation as long as it's not abused. PDP has been making things worse for streamers for some time now. Doing nothing isn't going to correct the problem.

 

[besada]

They are well within their rights to terminate a license to do a lets play, I agree. But was there a license granted? Or were they just allowing lets plays before because they are fine with them?

Either they think lets plays are infringing or they don't. If they don't think they are infringing they shouldn't issue a DMCA takedown request even if they don't like the guy.

If they do think they are infringing, but only want to allow certain people to do them. They should grant license to do them, while issuing takedowns for those without license.

Point is this: If you believe someone is legally using your content, you should not abuse the DMCA to punish them.

We have a thread for this. Go discuss this there.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Well it's too late now. Welcome to the internet and all that jazz. People been like this its just that now it is easier to get online and spout your idiocy. You moderate them on Steam, they show up on Twitter or whatever the hell else they can find.

 

[Atom Heart Mother]

i just use steam to launch pubg, ignore the shitty community features and youre fine

Well it's too late now. Welcome to the internet and all that jazz. People been like this its just that now it is easier to get online and spout your idiocy. You moderate them on Steam, they show up on Twitter or whatever the hell else they can find.

this too, this shit has always been there its just easier to see it now thanks to the modern internet

 

[mephixto]

I always report users that have nazi or any offensive avatars but I don't know if Steam or Valve do something about it.

 

[CheesecakeRecipe]

i just use steam to launch pubg, ignore the shitty community features and youre fine



this too, this shit has always been there its just easier to see it now thanks to the modern internet

Other people use the community features, that's why they're there. Deleting all of the game forums on Steam is not a good idea, as they very often host fixes some users may require to make a game playable, as well as being a place for users to directly and cleanly communicate issues to devs.

Sometimes, you have to think beyond yourself.

 

[Draft]

"Suck it up buttercup" is never an acceptable answer


The worship of steam is the weirdest thing i seen in gaming. A golden calf you literally shove money into, I wonder if there are people out there that make Walmart and Whole Foods fan art?

It remains one of the absolute best ways to buy games, and there was a period a few years ago where it was easily the best. Cheapest, most features, most convenience, just light years ahead of the console systems or any competing PC service.

Valve should do more to clean up the trash, but the fact is the vile stuff is hidden away. You need to go plumbing for it. I appreciate that Valve wants to let a ton of stuff onto Steam. Bad stuff gets through, but it also sits down near the bottom of a discovery queue. I use Steam every single day and have never seen any of the forum content or games linked in the OP.

The racist shit should be expunged from the service. Until Valve figures out how to do that while letting everything else through, I can live with the racist shit being sorted to the bottom of the pile.

 

[Sini]

I always report users that have nazi or any offensive avatars but I don't know if Steam or Valve do something about it.

They used to back in 2012

I wish the report profile function actually did something anymore. 5 years ago they'd community ban people I've reported and even email me thanks for the help for x amount of cases. But in last 4 years they haven't taken any action for any profiles I've reported.

 

[MUnited83]

Slightly offendable:

he is speaking out about it, and expecting more for the store.

I honestly have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

How do you even find that group? I search for the name, Steam returned no hits. Did a more general search and all i could find was edgy dumbasses with groups of 1 to 5 people at most.
Meanwhile I found Anti-Nazi group at over 1000 members and The only good nazi is a dead nazi at over 300. The presence of big nazi groups seems quite overstated.

If Neo-Fucking-GAF can be moderated in a rather successful manner, where the mods don't get anything out of it (other than keep a community they enjoy tidy), I'm sure Valve with its billions can get on the fucking moderation train.
Fuck, I'm sure there are plenty of alright people who'd do it for free lmao. It's just Valve being lazy fucks as usual.

NeoGaf doesn't have even 0.1% of the users Steam has. What a ridiculous comparison. Not to mention the requirement of a paid email and several months until approval. You do realize that's the thing that keeps most of the trolls away, yes?
Valve already has community moderators and already gives devs full control of their community forums.

 

[KageMaru]

i just use steam to launch pubg, ignore the shitty community features and youre fine



this too, this shit has always been there its just easier to see it now thanks to the modern internet

The solution is not to look the other way or just accept things as they are. It's because people have looked the other way for so long that it allowed it to get this bad.

 

[Mael]

Let's be real Steam forums need to go, if no one can be bothered to moderate them they're functionally pointless.
Passing the full burden of moderation to devs is all kinds of shitty from Valve Corporation but certainly expected.
Heck seriously how come Google fucking Play has a way to handle feedback that's so much better than the people running Steam?
Valve Corporation is probably the only company with a fanbase so rabid that they would take everything and defend it on top of it.

 

[Sini]

Slightly offendable:

Btw Steam is full of such groups. Find some anime group and see the groups of any user from there.

 

[UrbanRats]

Well it's too late now. Welcome to the internet and all that jazz. People been like this its just that now it is easier to get online and spout your idiocy. You moderate them on Steam, they show up on Twitter or whatever the hell else they can find.

I think the idea behind marginalizing these destructive users, operates on the assumption that you kick them off popular, mainstream platforms, one platform at a time.

You can't realistically prevent people to meet up in their basements (short of going full secret police, i guess) but companies can moderate their privately owned platforms as they see fit, which includes curbing on certain behaviors.

Really, the problem arises mostly from mainstream platforms, like Twitter, Steam and Youtube.
Nobody would make an article on "Why i abandoned /pol/", or "Why i'm done with Stormfront!".

I think the argument to keep these community groups is practically non-existent.
For games, i think it's a bit more complex, and i'm not so sure on that front, how things should be handled, to be honest.

 

[mephixto]

They used to back in 2012

Well we do our part, it up to Steam to start taking action again on this things.

 

[Complex Shadow]

You know I wouldn't be apposed to gog galaxy getting DRM, if it ment they got more games day one.

 

[Cheat Code]

Lmao are people still taking Hatred fucking seriously?

It's the biggest pisstake on edgelords I've ever seen. It's basically Postal HD.

 

[Ascheroth]

Slightly offendable:

I googled it and it looks like that group doesn't exist anymore, so it's not like Valve doesn't do anything.

---
Personally I think that manual moderation of 10k+ individual forums is a monumental task, but I also think Valve could do a much better job.

I think some sort of 3-strikes policy would do wonders to weed out all the racist shitheads and idiot-trolls.

If you get banned from an individual game forum for racism or hate-speech -> get banned from all Steam forums for a week.
The second time extend the ban to a month.
The third time make it permanent (or just keep increasing the time everytime)

 

[Aters]

LMAO. Valve is a company of what? 100 people? You expect them to moderate thousands of games and millions of users?

Welcome to reality guys.

 

[M°°nblade]

Slightly offendable:

Yes, like I said: slightly offendable. I can't see the content of the discussions in that steamgroup but if it's just the swastika and hitler picture that offend you so much, beware of 'google images', you will find it there as well.

As a libertarian I say: unless is legally finable, it should be allowed and up to the developers how much they want their business to be potentially damaged by the community they allow to infest their boards. I know some people who have the weirdest interests and fascinations.
I've chuckled about people I know irl who are into indianism, and I do the same when I see this kind of fanatism. If a marginal amount of people adore WWII nazi's, hey, each to their own.

The fact that you think allowing racist, misogynistic and otherwise vile beliefs to run rampant and potentially harm others equates to 'mature' community shows how utterly divorced from reality you are.

I think you are. Nothing's 'running rampant'.
Overly censorship is exactly what thrives such extremists into concentrated places and creates boards like stormfront used to be. It's better to dilute these kind of views in boards all around where they are challenged with their views instead of reinforced by like/worse-minded individuals in a vacuum.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Personally I'd cut user reviews. They're just an avenue for narcissistic blowhards to felate their ego. Be it gaming, restaurants, music, movies it's never worth it to sift through the bog of self aggrandisement and pontification, to get to the 5 people who actually review something as a service to others.

 

[jstripes]

If Neo-Fucking-GAF can be moderated in a rather successful manner, where the mods don't get anything out of it (other than keep a community they enjoy tidy), I'm sure Valve with its billions can get on the fucking moderation train.
Fuck, I'm sure there are plenty of alright people who'd do it for free lmao. It's just Valve being lazy fucks as usual.

Yes, but NeoGAF is despised by the general gaming community for being a bunch of "SJW snowflakes". (Partially due to bitterness of not being able to join, or being banned.)

Valve thrives on the goodwill of shithead gamers, unfortunately, so they're not going to do anything that might damage that goodwill.