Valve has responsibility towards: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.
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 simple. You are to want only progressive things, my son. If you do not know, we will teach you how to recognise the progressive and how to demand that the toxic subversive become the progressive. This is what we call progress; thick, delicious homogeneous progress.Please help us, Eurogamer! Tell us what to play. Tell us what to want!!
Can you post a link or a segment?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 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.
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.
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 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.Moral Values and social responsibility....
I feel like you took this from a Christian web page.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.
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.
lolThe astonishing arrogance that underlies this delusion
No shit sherlock.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.
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.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.
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!
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.
EuroGamer, Vice and Polygon all run by the same idiots seems like.
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.
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.
The premise of that argument to begin with is shaky.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?
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.
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.
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.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.