Eurogamer: Valve allowing consumers to make choices is "arrogant", "cowardly",

Valve is just a very lazy company imho.
It is filled with people with revolutionary ideas but little execution. Even Steam platform itself needs major overhauling and they treat it as HL3.
 
Last edited:
Valve is in a similar situation. As a curator of so much content, Valve (whether it wants to or not) has a certain editorial responsibility. This isn't about censorship. This is about curation and doing the hard work that comes with it.
Valve has responsibility towards:
• the consumer (refund policies to prevent obvious scams, something Eurogamer was against in the past because it harmed "walking simulator" chances of financial success),
• the rule of the law (no games with hate speech that meet the rule of the law, which is already in place but Eurogamer want a much more heavy handed implementation, they think for example Leisure Suit Larry should not exist)
• the developers (asset swaps are removed whenever reported, fees and a vetting process is in place to weed out typical asset swap developers, quality games raise to the top provided they have good ratings, etc).

Beyond that, after the curation model in Steam Greenlight and on their competitor GOG showed its shortcomings, they did away with it because of overwhelming consumer demand. Games that would not pass curation previously like Amazing Goat and cheap visual novels are given chances to exist and indeed many of them found financial success and made players that love them happy, despite being the poster child for sub-standard production values.

Hateful and illegal content already gets removed by Valve whenever reported. It's not the wild west yet.

The idea that Valve endorses the content it allows developers to sell on their platform is ludicrous. Even authoritarian book-burning regimes rarely went that far to hold librarians responsible for opinions in books on their shelves. Imagine being held responsible as a librarian for approval of everything in your political and religious section that could not contradict further. Valve sells war simulators from the perspective of the american, the russian, the chinese, and counting alternative history simulations like Europa Universalis, Civilization and Daisenryaku, even genocidial regimes. By your assertion they should be tried for treason.

Eurogamer advocates for a much more politically-driven test that alternative war simulations, visual novels, black humor games, games without "enough representation" or with things not offensive on their own but because of circumstancial meta factors, would not pass.
It's not different from what the right wing tried to pass in the nineties.
It doesn't become "not censorship" just because it's a private company doing it.

Is Steam where we go to get well-made games, or is it a swap-meet where I can get scammed by poorly made products? Can I trust that when I get my nephew a Steam gift card, he isn't going to use it to buy pornographic, homophobic, or racist games? Can I trust that when I play a game, it isn't a piece of elaborate propaganda? Basically, can I trust my Steam? And if so, what does that trust look like? Is it trusting that the content won't be morally objectionable? Or is it just trusting the overall quality of the product? Or do I just grow to not trust them and shop elsewhere?
That's a parenting fail more than anything.
Propaganda media is now more prevalent than ever, whether it's for stances you are for, or stances you are against.
Some of your propaganda is educational for the other side of this more politicized than ever world, and vice versa.
If you want to better control how your child is educated, you should put in the work and curate that content yourself for him so that he only gets what you like. Eurogamer not only is too lazy for that, but wants to use Valve as a political agenda advancement medium for their opponents and their children. Because no one seriously expects Valve (or god forbid, the internet) to be their children's nanny, right?

If you see hateful content, you can call Valve since it still falls under their guidelines. Racist, etc, games are not allowed on Steam.
Letting your children watch porn unattended can be a serious parenting fail legally in some countries, so you definitively should not do it.
 
I have the impression that the uk is lost. It is rapidly becoming a fascist state ruled by the "new edgy comunists" and corrupt politicians.

Anyway fuck eurogamer and their fascist regime. I have all that i need here in neogaf, without annoying ads, and now mostly populated with civilized and reasonable people (except the usual console wars but hey we are only human).

Fucking gamejournos dont know shit about games! I have been playing games since the beginning of the 80s, owned 85% of all consoles and i have much better taste than them. I might as well take away their role and post a few topics here, whenever i think it can help other fellow members that really enjoy videogames.
 
Last edited:
The author of this has now lost all credibility as a gaming journalist to me, and I will not waste my time reading anything he writes any longer beyond actual news. I tried reading his second hit piece against days gone - all I can think of this is written by a guy who wants to censor things he doesn't like, and who now cannot be trusted to preview or review anything for fun factor, because his primary concern is pushing an agenda and trying to convince the world how smart and progressive he is. So hard pass on caring an iota about his thoughts on a freaking zombie apocalypse game or any game for that matter.

I still rely on the site for early day news and DF analysis, but this is just one of many instances that have left me giving their reviews and previews no weight any longer.
 
The author of this has now lost all credibility as a gaming journalist to me, and I will not waste my time reading anything he writes any longer beyond actual news. I tried reading his second hit piece against days gone - all I can think of this is written by a guy who wants to censor things he doesn't like, and who now cannot be trusted to preview or review anything for fun factor, because his primary concern is pushing an agenda and trying to convince the world how smart and progressive he is. So hard pass on caring an iota about his thoughts on a freaking zombie apocalypse game or any game for that matter.

I still rely on the site for early day news and DF analysis, but this is just one of many instances that have left me giving their reviews and previews no weight any longer.
Can you post a link or a segment?
 
The idea that Valve endorses the content it allows developers to sell on their platform is ludicrous. Even authoritarian book-burning regimes rarely went that far to hold librarians responsible for opinions in books on their shelves. Imagine being held responsible as a librarian for approval of everything in your political and religious section that could not contradict further. Valve sells war simulators from the perspective of the american, the russian, the chinese, and counting alternative history simulations like Europa Universalis, Civilization and Daisenryaku, even genocidial regimes. By your assertion they should be tried for treason.
You're stretching. Again, Valve is not the guardian of free speech. Steam is not an entity that exists to allow for the honest and open exchange of ideas (like a publicly funded library). It cannot decide what you play. There are many competitors out there. There are practically zero walls between content and myself on the PC market. Steam wants people to think it is ubiquitous with the PC market and that if they choose not to sell something that they are banning that product from the eyes of the masses. This is not true. Steam is not that powerful. Steam cannot become the nanny-state. It's not a government actor. It is certainly not capable of being a fascist regime wanting to stifle political discourse or divergent thoughts.

It is a store. It makes money by selling content. It is responsible for the content it sells. It wants to sidestep that responsibility. It has done so very smartly by saying things like "If you're a player, we shouldn't be choosing for you what content you can or can't buy. If you're a developer, we shouldn't be choosing what content you're allowed to create." It's a sentiment that plays very well to American ideas about freedom. It's an argument that starts to lose validity when you realize that Valve has no control whatsoever about what you and I are free to do. They've got good spin, but don't confuse them for being more than they are. They are just a store.
 
I honestly don't get all the fuss. Is this some neo-internet bullshit? It's just valve saying they allow all things that are not against law or straight up bollocks. Why is this in this day and age a bad thing? Back in my day, more choice meant better. I'm totally out of touch with people I guess.
 
That's the problem, Steam resides in dumbistan where people are the mot uneducated, and I don't mean just school I mean as a society, about basic principle that seem obvious or common-sense in Europe, like where freedom of speech ends even for radical leftists.

They already were compelled by law not to publish illegal content and that's why it was in their guidelines, so what does the new announcement means? It means they are rewriting their EULAs and contractualisation in order to avoid liabilities for illegal content.

Say the store gets flooded with racist propaganda games, what Steam seem to think it'll be able to do, is authorise and let all this content published on the store (because if anything, the complete haywire lack of quality control and filter was already a problem on Steam) while taking all the time to ban some games in some cases an maybe leave some other game or take more time, while avoiding liability for having accepted, hosted and promoted these games in the first place. That's the only thing their announcement is susceptible to mean.

Wow dude, those are pretty big generalizations. Specially coming from someone concerned about racism.

I think this is a good point to drop the conversation. I enjoyed it! Thanks!
 
The first comment on that article really hammers a point home.

Amazon sells a metric shit ton sexual related objects, porn and weapons that can be accessed by anyone. So why do they get a free pass?
I don't believe for a second that this "well intentioned" article has me the consumer, is doing a services for my best interests are.

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, and for it to offer this delusion as an excuse for an abandonment of moral values and an abdication of social responsibility is rank cowardice.
And why is that exactly?
Moral Values and social responsibility....
And what exactly are steams moral values and social responsibility's? The're a company that distributes media more commonly in the games region. The're a business re-designed to make money you sanctimonious fuck.
and for it to offer this delusion as an excuse for an abandonment of moral values and an abdication of social responsibility is rank cowardice.
I feel like you took this from a Christian web page.

The astonishing arrogance that underlies this delusion can be found in this passage of Johnson's blog: "If you're a player, we shouldn't be choosing for you what content you can or can't buy. If you're a developer, we shouldn't be choosing what content you're allowed to create. Those choices should be yours to make." Guess what, Valve: we still have those choices regardless of what you do. As huge as Steam is, it does not actually have a global hegemony on video game distribution. Other ways of making, distributing and playing games exist, but Valve appears to think that by removing a game from the Steam store it is effacing it from existence. It has confused itself with national governments, the internet, society itself. It actually thinks it has absolute power.

The astonishing arrogance that underlies this delusion
lol

If you're a player, we shouldn't be choosing for you what content you can or can't buy. If you're a developer, we shouldn't be choosing what content you're allowed to create. Those choices should be yours to make." Guess what, Valve: we still have those choices regardless of what you do.
No shit sherlock.
As huge as Steam is, it does not actually have a global hegemony on video game distribution. Other ways of making, distributing and playing games exist, but Valve appears to think that by removing a game from the Steam store it is effacing it from existence. It has confused itself with national governments, the internet, society itself. It actually thinks it has absolute power.
Wtf are you going on about? Yes they have absolute power over its distribution platform. Just in the same manner that you have absolute power to not waffle complete rubbish.



Yea this article is someone gargling nonsense to try and spit out a hot take on recent events.
It's someone looking for a click in other words.
 
Wow dude, those are pretty big generalizations. Specially coming from someone concerned about racism.

I think this is a good point to drop the conversation. I enjoyed it! Thanks!
So american is now a race? Also when a trend or attitude specifically concern a group or said attitude is common amongst a majority of the group, yes that's call a generalisation, that's their purpose, it doesn't mean "everybody" nor that it's because of their race.
 
Steam is doing something most retailers don’t. They are offering products that they can claim to not endorse even though they sell it. People are used to the opposite, which is why Walmart or other companies will take certain products off shelves if they deem them conflicting with their conpanys perception. And people are used to using this as a weapon to stop “bad or inappropriate” content from getting to consumer hands. Apple App Store and most stores in general are restrictive

So people will lash out it. It’s amazing to me that this happens though since games like GTA used to always fuel this type of rhetoric. Gamers should be used to people trying to squash games with questionable content and fighting it at every turn.
 
Steam is doing something most retailers don’t. They are offering products that they can claim to not endorse even though they sell it. People are used to the opposite, which is why Walmart or other companies will take certain products off shelves if they deem them conflicting with their conpanys perception. And people are used to using this as a weapon to stop “bad or inappropriate” content from getting to consumer hands. Apple App Store and most stores in general are restrictive

So people will lash out it. It’s amazing to me that this happens though since games like GTA used to always fuel this type of rhetoric. Gamers should be used to people trying to squash games with questionable content and fighting it at every turn.

I think most people are used to it. It's just they are tired of it and they will no longer accept it.
 
Steam is doing something most retailers don’t. They are offering products that they can claim to not endorse even though they sell it. People are used to the opposite, which is why Walmart or other companies will take certain products off shelves if they deem them conflicting with their conpanys perception. And people are used to using this as a weapon to stop “bad or inappropriate” content from getting to consumer hands. Apple App Store and most stores in general are restrictive

So people will lash out it. It’s amazing to me that this happens though since games like GTA used to always fuel this type of rhetoric. Gamers should be used to people trying to squash games with questionable content and fighting it at every turn.
I know the person above highlighted the same post. I'm not trying to dog pile you or even disagree with you. I just want to add that while gamers are certainly used to it, there has been a major cultural shift and things have changed big time. Prior to the rise of social justice movements / social media, gamers were united in resisting efforts of non-gamers trying to squash games at every term. But in recent years gamers who have fought the good fight for years, were suddenly turned on by their former allies who essentially crossed the lines. Of course people lash out when they feel betrayed.
 
EuroGamer, Vice and Polygon all run by the same idiots seems like.
Gaming journalism is, mostly, trash and wholly parasitic.
But what I'm finding increasingly troubling is the media's interest in acting as an industry's moral gatekeeper.

The games media doesn't have an especially flattering history of good moral conduct and next to no history of self accountability.
Nobody has appointed them to speak for anyone, they have assumed this role.
 
Last edited:
It boggles my mind that we've reached this point. I seriously thought book burnings and banning things had fallen into the recesses of History. I thought we could all unite against the censors, and their calls for removing Huckleberry Finn, Catch 22, Malcolm X, and Leaves of Grass.

Yes, it's true, there were people who argued that Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman was "filthy".

I do not, and will never, trust anyone fwho thinks they know better than me as to what I should read, play, or watch. They are the censors, they are the ones who think they know best, that they should be able to view something and decide whether others can view it. They are the ones worried that these these things will rot Minds... Not their minds of course, for they are too strong to be affected, but everyone else is weak willed and thin-skinned and must be protected.

How the hell did we reach the point where those who should know better are demanding censorship? They have no sense of History. They have confussed right and wrong with the fad of the day.

This despite entire history proving the censors wrong. Proving that it will inevitably be used against political dissidents, and all the other things progressives claim they hold dear, like sexual diversity. But no, of course, they have the answers, their views are perfect, they have goodness and Justice and progress on their side. Of course, they sound just like the religious conservatives who also claim to know better, who had their own definitions of Filth and perversity and Evil, and used their power to suppress so many works of literature.

Fuck the censors and everyone who sides with them. Read free, watch free, play free, speak free. We do not need you deciding what is okay for us to play, just like we didn't need your kind deciding what books were filth.
 
Last edited:
You're stretching. Again, Valve is not the guardian of free speech. Steam is not an entity that exists to allow for the honest and open exchange of ideas (like a publicly funded library). It cannot decide what you play. There are many competitors out there. There are practically zero walls between content and myself on the PC market. Steam wants people to think it is ubiquitous with the PC market and that if they choose not to sell something that they are banning that product from the eyes of the masses. This is not true. Steam is not that powerful. Steam cannot become the nanny-state. It's not a government actor. It is certainly not capable of being a fascist regime wanting to stifle political discourse or divergent thoughts.

It is a store. It makes money by selling content. It is responsible for the content it sells. It wants to sidestep that responsibility. It has done so very smartly by saying things like "If you're a player, we shouldn't be choosing for you what content you can or can't buy. If you're a developer, we shouldn't be choosing what content you're allowed to create." It's a sentiment that plays very well to American ideas about freedom. It's an argument that starts to lose validity when you realize that Valve has no control whatsoever about what you and I are free to do. They've got good spin, but don't confuse them for being more than they are. They are just a store.
What if Valve actually thinks it's fine allowing visual novels and content that would anger Eurogamer, and if Valve thinks doing otherwise is censorship?

Especially considering they use the words "censor" and "prevent access" in their press releases, and everyone caught up to the charade.
Let's not kid ourselves.
The PC market was dead for a lot of time because of the lack of the distribution model Valve offers, and has as a result 90% of the PC market on lock (which these outlets want these games removed from, for what alternatives?
GOG doesn't even allow entire genres and one time they decided Zacktronics should stop doing games and go look elsewhere how to sell games.
itch.io founder is threatening developers with the "BAN Button" the instant controversy arises.
Many games banned from consoles or rejected from curation only effectively saw release thanks to Steam.
Developers could release it in zip files emailed, sure, but then even Paypal and similar pay outlets were proven to be suspectible to the slightest hint of pressure. Inoffensive emulation projects had their donation accounts terminated.
What's left? Bitcoin? That inaccessible currency for everyone but those already in that ecosystem, and already outlawed in many countries?
Where does the developer go from there? Release it for free? Developers can't exactly go on operating without income, so they will then and there be silenced forever.

I guess this is where you come and cheer "Good, it's the market choice. Just as people are free to produce whatever content they want, the market is free to punish them", except it's not. The content in question doesn't meet hate speech definitions legally for the authorities, for Valve, and for the consumers, otherwise it would not be sold and would be shot down when reported. It's things like Leisure Suit Larry, Senran Kagura, Dead or Alive, Kingdom Come, among other things.
It's content that doesn't please Eurogamer, that feels certain genres have to go.
The takedown wasn't natural market forces at play. It was certain "moral authorities" declaring these games are hate speech or problematic and their existence should not be allowed.

It's lovely, journalists in the nineties said Castlevania Symphony of the Moon had no business being made because it's a 2D game in 1998. However the implications of this proposal is that those storefront owners should not listen to developers or consumers, but to those "fourth power" self proclaimed vanguards of allowed speech and ensure that thing doesn't exist.

Eurogamer is exactly advocating for book burning. That's the effective end result of this proposal.
Covering all bases from game coverage to reporting pay accounts, social media accounts, youtube channels promoting it, spreading negative word of mouth (how Kingdom Come is the buggiest game ever, or uncensored Fire Emblem Fates has rape... even if not true) and contacting and pressuring distributors (even managed to get GTA V banned from australian retailers), publishers, and storefronts to ensure no revenue streams go to the developers and no legitimate way to play the game is available to consumers... that, is the very definition of censorship.
 
Last edited:
You're stretching. Again, Valve is not the guardian of free speech. Steam is not an entity that exists to allow for the honest and open exchange of ideas (like a publicly funded library). It cannot decide what you play. There are many competitors out there. There are practically zero walls between content and myself on the PC market. Steam wants people to think it is ubiquitous with the PC market and that if they choose not to sell something that they are banning that product from the eyes of the masses. This is not true. Steam is not that powerful. Steam cannot become the nanny-state. It's not a government actor. It is certainly not capable of being a fascist regime wanting to stifle political discourse or divergent thoughts.

It is a store. It makes money by selling content. It is responsible for the content it sells. It wants to sidestep that responsibility. It has done so very smartly by saying things like "If you're a player, we shouldn't be choosing for you what content you can or can't buy. If you're a developer, we shouldn't be choosing what content you're allowed to create." It's a sentiment that plays very well to American ideas about freedom. It's an argument that starts to lose validity when you realize that Valve has no control whatsoever about what you and I are free to do. They've got good spin, but don't confuse them for being more than they are. They are just a store.
Did you write the original eurogamer article? I don't understand this logic in your post or the article. Because Steam is just a store and is not a government actor, they don't need to uphold values like freedom of expression. Even if that value is something their customers overwhelmingly agree with?
 
Last edited:
Did you write the original eurogamer article? I don't understand this logic in your post or the article. Because Steam is just a store and is not a government actor, they don't need to uphold values like freedom of expression. Even if that value is something their customers overwhelmingly agree with?
The premise of that argument to begin with is shaky.
"Valve doesn't need to uphold values like freedom of expression. They're just a store."
You could just as well say:
"Valve doesn't need to reject values like freedom of expression. They're just a store."

The first sentence is usually said as a justification whenever something Eurogamer asks for to be taken down, is then taken down because of the controversy.
As a way to say: Their acts are okay.
Besides how flimsy it is (religious and economical interests throughout history were involved in censorship and supressing books and information, and in history books that wasn't dismissed as "market forces at play, they don't have to be for free speech") It doesn't really work here when the "market forces that are always right" doesn't go your way.
The "responsibilities" they didn't take seriously? That goes both ways too.
 
It boggles my mind that we've reached this point. I seriously thought book burnings and banning things had fallen into the recesses of History. I thought we could all unite against the censors, and their calls for removing Huckleberry Finn, Catch 22, Malcolm X, and Leaves of Grass.

Yes, it's true, there were people who argued that Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman was "filthy".

I do not, and will never, trust anyone fwho thinks they know better than me as to what I should read, play, or watch. They are the censors, they are the ones who think they know best, that they should be able to view something and decide whether others can view it. They are the ones worried that these these things will rot Minds... Not their minds of course, for they are too strong to be affected, but everyone else is weak willed and thin-skinned and must be protected.

How the hell did we reach the point where those who should know better are demanding censorship? They have no sense of History. They have confussed right and wrong with the fad of the day.

This despite entire history proving the censors wrong. Proving that it will inevitably be used against political dissidents, and all the other things progressives claim they hold dear, like sexual diversity. But no, of course, they have the answers, their views are perfect, they have goodness and Justice and progress on their side. Of course, they sound just like the religious conservatives who also claim to know better, who had their own definitions of Filth and perversity and Evil, and used their power to suppress so many works of literature.

Fuck the censors and everyone who sides with them. Read free, watch free, play free, speak free. We do not need you deciding what is okay for us to play, just like we didn't need your kind deciding what books were filth.

What if Valve actually thinks it's fine allowing visual novels and content that would anger Eurogamer, and if Valve thinks doing otherwise is censorship?

Especially considering they use the words "censor" and "prevent access" in their press releases, and everyone caught up to the charade.
Let's not kid ourselves.
The PC market was dead for a lot of time because of the lack of the distribution model Valve offers, and has as a result 90% of the PC market on lock (which these outlets want these games removed from, for what alternatives?
GOG doesn't even allow entire genres and one time they decided Zacktronics should stop doing games and go look elsewhere how to sell games.
itch.io founder is threatening developers with the "BAN Button" the instant controversy arises.
Many games banned from consoles or rejected from curation only effectively saw release thanks to Steam.
Developers could release it in zip files emailed, sure, but then even Paypal and similar pay outlets were proven to be suspectible to the slightest hint of pressure. Inoffensive emulation projects had their donation accounts terminated.
What's left? Bitcoin? That inaccessible currency for everyone but those already in that ecosystem, and already outlawed in many countries?
Where does the developer go from there? Release it for free? Developers can't exactly go on operating without income, so they will then and there be silenced forever.

I guess this is where you come and cheer "Good, it's the market choice. Just as people are free to produce whatever content they want, the market is free to punish them", except it's not. The content in question doesn't meet hate speech definitions legally for the authorities, for Valve, and for the consumers, otherwise it would not be sold and would be shot down when reported. It's things like Leisure Suit Larry, Senran Kagura, Dead or Alive, Kingdom Come, among other things.
It's content that doesn't please Eurogamer, that feels certain genres have to go.
The takedown wasn't natural market forces at play. It was certain "moral authorities" declaring these games are hate speech or problematic and their existence should not be allowed.

It's lovely, journalists in the nineties said Castlevania Symphony of the Moon had no business being made because it's a 2D game in 1998. However the implications of this proposal is that those storefront owners should not listen to developers or consumers, but to those "fourth power" self proclaimed vanguards of allowed speech and ensure that thing doesn't exist.

Eurogamer is exactly advocating for book burning. That's the effective end result of this proposal.
Covering all bases from game coverage to reporting pay accounts, social media accounts, youtube channels promoting it, spreading negative word of mouth (how Kingdom Come is the buggiest game ever, or uncensored Fire Emblem Fates has rape... even if not true) and contacting and pressuring distributors (even managed to get GTA V banned from australian retailers), publishers, and storefronts to ensure no revenue streams go to the developers and no legitimate way to play the game is available to consumers... that, is the very definition of censorship.

Beautiful, you get it. Very well put, both of you.

I think this is a strong precedent and will show other brands that not all gamers think like Twitter and media groups.
 
It boggles my mind that we've reached this point. I seriously thought book burnings and banning things had fallen into the recesses of History. I thought we could all unite against the censors, and their calls for removing Huckleberry Finn, Catch 22, Malcolm X, and Leaves of Grass.

Yes, it's true, there were people who argued that Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman was "filthy".

I do not, and will never, trust anyone fwho thinks they know better than me as to what I should read, play, or watch. They are the censors, they are the ones who think they know best, that they should be able to view something and decide whether others can view it. They are the ones worried that these these things will rot Minds... Not their minds of course, for they are too strong to be affected, but everyone else is weak willed and thin-skinned and must be protected.

How the hell did we reach the point where those who should know better are demanding censorship? They have no sense of History. They have confussed right and wrong with the fad of the day.

This despite entire history proving the censors wrong. Proving that it will inevitably be used against political dissidents, and all the other things progressives claim they hold dear, like sexual diversity. But no, of course, they have the answers, their views are perfect, they have goodness and Justice and progress on their side. Of course, they sound just like the religious conservatives who also claim to know better, who had their own definitions of Filth and perversity and Evil, and used their power to suppress so many works of literature.

Fuck the censors and everyone who sides with them. Read free, watch free, play free, speak free. We do not need you deciding what is okay for us to play, just like we didn't need your kind deciding what books were filth.
Could we all just take a minute to read the article? Honestly, I think the brunt of the problem is that people are using some sort of confirmation bias when looking at it. The author, many times over, mentions how cowardly it is for Valve to not take responsibility for the curation of its content. I have echoed that sentiment in saying that storefronts need to be responsible for what is, essentially, on their shelves. At no point did I or the author say that Valve needs to remove or censor content. Let me repeat that. At NO POINT did I or the author advocate censorship. What we have advocated is responsibility for the content being provided.

Responsibility could take the form of censorship by removing games with pornographic or violent content. Responsibility could take the form of quality assurance by removing games with too many bugs. Responsibility could take the form of limiting games that are too divergent from our society or push racist agendas. It could be all the things people are afraid of in their doomsday thought-police style scenarios.

Or... responsibility could be having the courage to say that a visual novel with questionable content can be art and deserves to be taken seriously. Or it could be the admission that some games (that could be seen as horribly insensitive) can have value as satirical reflections of the world we live in. It could be Valve showing how even broken games can offer up legitimately enjoyable experiences.

Being responsible for the entertainment they provide doesn't mean that they have to become the thought-police. It means that they have to care enough to take a stand for their beliefs and to define the ethics of their company instead of just saying that as long as it's not illegal, it's okay. This is where they are being cowardly. They refuse to make the call and instead leave it up to other institutions to decide for them what is best for their customers and company.

I think that's where the disconnect is. It's not a censorship thing. It's a responsibility thing. It's having the guts, if that's the way they want to play it, to say that Hunie Pop and School Shooter are valid forms of expression that deserve a platform. Or the guts to say they don't. Instead of just saying nothing.
 
Could we all just take a minute to read the article? Honestly, I think the brunt of the problem is that people are using some sort of confirmation bias when looking at it. The author, many times over, mentions how cowardly it is for Valve to not take responsibility for the curation of its content. I have echoed that sentiment in saying that storefronts need to be responsible for what is, essentially, on their shelves. At no point did I or the author say that Valve needs to remove or censor content. Let me repeat that. At NO POINT did I or the author advocate censorship. What we have advocated is responsibility for the content being provided.

Responsibility could take the form of censorship by removing games with pornographic or violent content. Responsibility could take the form of quality assurance by removing games with too many bugs. Responsibility could take the form of limiting games that are too divergent from our society or push racist agendas. It could be all the things people are afraid of in their doomsday thought-police style scenarios.

Or... responsibility could be having the courage to say that a visual novel with questionable content can be art and deserves to be taken seriously. Or it could be the admission that some games (that could be seen as horribly insensitive) can have value as satirical reflections of the world we live in. It could be Valve showing how even broken games can offer up legitimately enjoyable experiences.

Being responsible for the entertainment they provide doesn't mean that they have to become the thought-police. It means that they have to care enough to take a stand for their beliefs and to define the ethics of their company instead of just saying that as long as it's not illegal, it's okay. This is where they are being cowardly. They refuse to make the call and instead leave it up to other institutions to decide for them what is best for their customers and company.

I think that's where the disconnect is. It's not a censorship thing. It's a responsibility thing. It's having the guts, if that's the way they want to play it, to say that Hunie Pop and School Shooter are valid forms of expression that deserve a platform. Or the guts to say they don't. Instead of just saying nothing.
What responsibility do they have other than to follow the law? if it is some moral obligation that you hold them to, then that is advocating for censorship on that ground. if its to keep nonworking games off their platform, they already are doing that. what do they have to keep off their shelves to live up to the responsibility that you or the author are attributing to them?
 
Could we all just take a minute to read the article? Honestly, I think the brunt of the problem is that people are using some sort of confirmation bias when looking at it. The author, many times over, mentions how cowardly it is for Valve to not take responsibility for the curation of its content. I have echoed that sentiment in saying that storefronts need to be responsible for what is, essentially, on their shelves. At no point did I or the author say that Valve needs to remove or censor content. Let me repeat that. At NO POINT did I or the author advocate censorship. What we have advocated is responsibility for the content being provided.

Responsibility could take the form of censorship by removing games with pornographic or violent content. Responsibility could take the form of quality assurance by removing games with too many bugs. Responsibility could take the form of limiting games that are too divergent from our society or push racist agendas. It could be all the things people are afraid of in their doomsday thought-police style scenarios.

Or... responsibility could be having the courage to say that a visual novel with questionable content can be art and deserves to be taken seriously. Or it could be the admission that some games (that could be seen as horribly insensitive) can have value as satirical reflections of the world we live in. It could be Valve showing how even broken games can offer up legitimately enjoyable experiences.

Being responsible for the entertainment they provide doesn't mean that they have to become the thought-police. It means that they have to care enough to take a stand for their beliefs and to define the ethics of their company instead of just saying that as long as it's not illegal, it's okay. This is where they are being cowardly. They refuse to make the call and instead leave it up to other institutions to decide for them what is best for their customers and company.

I think that's where the disconnect is. It's not a censorship thing. It's a responsibility thing. It's having the guts, if that's the way they want to play it, to say that Hunie Pop and School Shooter are valid forms of expression that deserve a platform. Or the guts to say they don't. Instead of just saying nothing.

Then you simply do not understand what censorship is. If the dominant Marketplace refuses to sell something on moral grounds, it is censorship. It creates an atmosphere in which content creators must attempt to remain within the vague, shifting bounds of someone else's morality In order to sell their product. It has a chilling effect on Creative output, where creators begin to self-censor in order to ensure Financial viability.

This can be seen in many other Industries.

please do not respond that only government can censor. This is a limited and incorrect view of censorship that is not accepted by, well, anyone but people who like to censor.

For example, should a character be allowed to be homophobic in a game? Racist? I'm not talking about the message of the game, but that of a single character, one painted as a villain. Will the fear that people will be offended by this character cause the game to be not sold on Steam? best not include the character in the first place, for fear of angering the censor. can you imagine literature not be allowed to have characters profess certain ideas, no matter how vile we find them?

If This Were a hundred years ago there would be people arguing that valve has a moral responsibility not to sell games that promote homosexuality, sex outside marriage, and civil rights. You hide behind the morality of the day and claim to be the good guy. The only reason these trash games with trash ideas get any notoriety at all is because people protest them.

There will always be trash content. There's trash music, trash books, trash movies, and trash games. I know, I know this means stuff you don't want to buy will be out there. Just don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, problem solved. If nobody agrees with you, problem solved. Either way people decide for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Valve has actually made a courageus move. They've just showed the courage when it comes to future of the platform, while some journos don;t seem to care about it and are more concerned about their own social causes more than the gaming itself.

And the author is either ignorant or pretending to be ignorant about market realities. On PC unless you're a huge publisher or F2P dev..Steam is PCgaming. There are couple rare exceptions, mostly focused in genres Eurogamer treats like they don't exist at all, but for most PC devs if you're not on Steam you won't get money. So there's enourmous responsibility on Valve's shoulders. PC gaming is the biggest home platform, the one where most innovation is born and the most international ones, with almost every country having some devs to make games for it. And it will only get weirder and more diverse, as people from poorer countries start to make more and better games, bringing their own sensibilities and values to the market. And it's on Valve to give them access to gamers. But what Eurogamer or Polygon wants is for this entire industry, of over hundred countries, dozens of religions, countless cultures...all of that to be bound by moral standards of small group of american and british journalists. For Christ's sake..even in their own damn countries they represent at best half of populations, since it doesn't matter if you like Trump or not or think Brexit is good or not, they still got half of USA and UK's populations to vote for them. So even in their own damn countries those progressives can't speak for all and suddenly they think they have the right to dictate shit to entire damn world?

Frankly, it's disgusting. For people complaining so much about evils of old western powers they sure as hell don't have problems with enacting what's essentially cultural colonialism these days.
 
Last edited:
Being responsible for the entertainment they provide doesn't mean that they have to become the thought-police. It means that they have to care enough to take a stand for their beliefs and to define the ethics of their company instead of just saying that as long as it's not illegal, it's okay. This is where they are being cowardly. They refuse to make the call and instead leave it up to other institutions to decide for them what is best for their customers and company.

I think that's where the disconnect is. It's not a censorship thing. It's a responsibility thing. It's having the guts, if that's the way they want to play it, to say that Hunie Pop and School Shooter are valid forms of expression that deserve a platform. Or the guts to say they don't. Instead of just saying nothing.
Having open store IS a statement of ethics. They value free and open market more than they value feelings of small part of their potential customers. That is a statement of ethics. They did clearly state their beliefs. Just because their libertarian in their nature doesn't change anything.