infinitys_7th
Member
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-06-07-steams-content-policy-is-both-arrogant-and-cowardly
It's kind of odd how these venues want big business to control products and hold them back do to some sort of subjective "moral obligation", but get butthurt when they say they don't care. It is dissonant to claim that corporations should police speech you dislike while decrying other forms of corporate power. Do they realize these opposite actions are both the practice of free speech? That comparing a game (which is not, in Eurogamer's argument, faulty) to faulty electrical equipment makes no sense?
I see their argument that Steam is flooded with shit games, so I have to ask. . .where are they, in the sense of exposure? I don't see them flooding the sales. I don't see them advertised. I see mostly AAA games and decently rated/popular games being promote. It's like they missed that Steam DOES promote certain games, but still allows the yuri simulators and massacre games a place to sell because 1) they get money, and 2) Valve built itself up from a small company - they have some amount of empathy, especially when Point 1 is is involved.
Will you ever see Hatred given a place on the frontpage? Nope, but it's there. Do we really want a corporation deciding what we should think for us?
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.
It's kind of odd how these venues want big business to control products and hold them back do to some sort of subjective "moral obligation", but get butthurt when they say they don't care. It is dissonant to claim that corporations should police speech you dislike while decrying other forms of corporate power. Do they realize these opposite actions are both the practice of free speech? That comparing a game (which is not, in Eurogamer's argument, faulty) to faulty electrical equipment makes no sense?
I see their argument that Steam is flooded with shit games, so I have to ask. . .where are they, in the sense of exposure? I don't see them flooding the sales. I don't see them advertised. I see mostly AAA games and decently rated/popular games being promote. It's like they missed that Steam DOES promote certain games, but still allows the yuri simulators and massacre games a place to sell because 1) they get money, and 2) Valve built itself up from a small company - they have some amount of empathy, especially when Point 1 is is involved.
Will you ever see Hatred given a place on the frontpage? Nope, but it's there. Do we really want a corporation deciding what we should think for us?
Last edited: