Sony forcing Japan only games to go through content inspections which are conducted in English

That is only for legal protections. I'm talking about those who choose to boycott a service (again, which many people here are talking about doing with Sony) or protest against one. You can't make a law that says you have to keep someone on your staff or continue hosting content that people find repulsive. The government can't charge you with anything for what you have on your service, but they can't punish you for firing someone who is toxic enough to drive away your customers.
People are boycotting facebook, and there are those that will boycott sony for going against free speech.

Safe harbor is a special protection making you immune from what you host. You should lose it if you're going to exercise editorial control and effectively become a publisher. A publisher is liable for what he publishes.

If you're liable you're liable, and will have to be more careful on what you allow on your platform, this doesn't affect just the lone 'toxic' guy on the platform but everyone on the platform. This will affect any social media platform, if they are found to lose safe harbor, these social media platforms will go out of business or embrace free speech.
 
Last edited:

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
I remember Fox calling the Xbox the "Sexbox" over Mass Effect. Unfortunately, it seems games like Mass Effect are going down, too. Very few games recently have romance and sex as options in them. I loved when romance was a big part of these games and I could spend hours reading about romance speculation before the games came out. Does that happen anymore? AC Odyssey has a little bit of that but it seems trends are to knock down any sex stuff. Gaming is just one big fight year round to me now...
It seems in west especially they considere sex more harmful than violence in games.
 
In all honesty, I think we should've seen this coming. Given how Sony has acted like in the past and well as how they've taken out some things of Japanese vita games in recent years. It was a matter of time before this came to a head on PS4 and potentially PS5.

Sony definitely have the Fuck You money right now, so that's why you're seeing all these shitty moves from them. When they announce PS5 they're going to make some bone headed decision with it like they did with the PS3 but this time around they won't have the Japanese support like they did with the PS3. They're going to be in the position that MS was at the beginning of this gen. Speaking of MS, they're going to come out swinging and Sony is going to get knocked the fuck out in America and some parts of Europe. And Nintendo getting more and more of the niche games from Japanese developers, Sony is going to be in a tight spot.
 
In all honesty, I think we should've seen this coming. Given how Sony has acted like in the past and well as how they've taken out some things of Japanese vita games in recent years. It was a matter of time before this came to a head on PS4 and potentially PS5.

Sony definitely have the Fuck You money right now, so that's why you're seeing all these shitty moves from them. When they announce PS5 they're going to make some bone headed decision with it like they did with the PS3 but this time around they won't have the Japanese support like they did with the PS3. They're going to be in the position that MS was at the beginning of this gen. Speaking of MS, they're going to come out swinging and Sony is going to get knocked the fuck out in America and some parts of Europe. And Nintendo getting more and more of the niche games from Japanese developers, Sony is going to be in a tight spot.
Haha no. This is not about arrogance or fuck you money. This is because of the SJW outrage culture these days. They don't want the outrage mob on their backs. This will have little impact to Sonyv though, as most people don't care about these niche Japanese games.
 
Haha no. This is not about arrogance or fuck you money. This is because of the SJW outrage culture these days. They don't want the outrage mob on their backs. This will have little impact to Sonyv though, as most people don't care about these niche Japanese games.
Honestly, if the PS4 wasn't doing as well if it was right now, they wouldn't pulling this.

As far as the mainstream not caring about niche Japanese games, you're probably right. Still these niche Japanese games have enough fans that Japanese developers continue to make them. Lost money is still lost money like others have said.The mainstream will drop Sony in a flash if the next Xbox is far better for them. As far as the outrage mob goes, whenever a company has told them to fuck off, they complain on twitter for a few days and that's the end of it. A company's bottom line is far more important than someone's feelings on twitter.
 
Last edited:
People are boycotting facebook, and there are those that will boycott sony for going against free speech.

Safe harbor is a special protection making you immune from what you host. You should lose it if you're going to exercise editorial control and effectively become a publisher. A publisher is liable for what he publishes.

If you're liable you're liable, and will have to be more careful on what you allow on your platform, this doesn't affect just the lone 'toxic' guy on the platform but everyone on the platform. This will affect any social media platform, if they are found to lose safe harbor, these social media platforms will go out of business or embrace free speech.
Again, being immune from what you host in a legal manner. If someone uploads child porn to Youtube for example, Youtube does not suddenly become a child porn distributor. Kicking someone out doesn't make you a publisher, it means that the person you kick out was bad for you and your business.

Free speech does not mean freedom from non-legal consequences. You can say whatever you want, but other people don't have to publish it or give you a place to promote it. Nobody is owed a platform.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, if the PS4 wasn't doing as well if it was right now, they wouldn't pulling this.

As far as the mainstream not caring about niche Japanese games, you're probably right. Still these niche Japanese games have enough fans that Japanese developers continue to make them. Lost money is still lost money like others have said.The mainstream will drop Sony in a flash if the next Xbox is far better for them. As far as the outrage mob goes, whenever a company has told them to fuck off, they complain on twitter for a few days and that's the end of it. A company's bottom line is far more important than someone's feelings on twitter.
I feel like people are underestimating how many of these niche games there are, especially since so many lump anything anime into the "niche" pile. Even if no one of them sells millions they are still smaller budget games where some devs can put out multiple games a year.

I own 209 physical PS4 games right now. 96 of them are anime style games and/or Japanese games with fan service. If Sony makes it hard for these games to succeed on their system by either banning them, making it hard to get them approved due to hurdles like language barriers or just not advertising them that would be roughly half the games I buy potentially moving away. The PS4 was my go to Japanese game system along with the Vita. Sony is just being absurd thinking it's a good idea to alienate this stuff.

Without these games most of my other games are third party. I can get them on PC or Xbox. Sony has a good first party line up but they don't appeal to me as much as the Japanese games do.

I have a Sophitia statue next to 2B, Tharja and Dragon's Crown Sorceress statues under my TV. I like sex appeal and if Sony rejects it I need to go. It's one thing to make first party games however they want, it's another to target these games with ridiculous restrictions. It's insulting.

This Sounds like the same type of "on top" arrogance Sony has had in the past and we saw recently with EA telling potential customers not to buy Battlefield 5. I don't understand the appeal of attacking costumers so openly but it is a trend these days, albeit one that is somewhat discouraged with some individuals losing their positions.
 
Honestly, if the PS4 wasn't doing as well if it was right now, they wouldn't pulling this.

As far as the mainstream not caring about niche Japanese games, you're probably right. Still these niche Japanese games have enough fans that Japanese developers continue to make them. Lost money is still lost money like others have said.The mainstream will drop Sony in a flash if the next Xbox is far better for them. As far as the outrage mob goes, whenever a company has told them to fuck off, they complain on twitter for a few days and that's the end of it. A company's bottom line is far more important than someone's feelings on twitter.
Sure, I can see your point that if they were in financial trouble they might not have done it.

Disagree with the bold part though. Unfortunately, we see the consequences of this all the time now. People getting fired for the slightest un-PC comment on twitter, games including much more identity politics, moral posturing and SJW ideology. If only companies had the balls as you say to let it blow over after the first initial days. Just look at all the crap with Battlefield 5, Dead or Alive boob physics and now SJW journalists outraging on Red Dead Redemption 2 for its "troubling portrayal of women and minorities yadda yadda yadda" - luckily R* doesn't succumb to that crap and neither did Sony, at least in this case.

I don't agree with Sony censoring games but I don't see this as enough compelling evidence to say that people will pick the next Xbox over the next Playstation because of censoring niche titles.
 
Last edited:
Again, being immune from what you host in a legal manner. If someone uploads child porn to Youtube for example, Youtube does not suddenly become a child porn distributor. Kicking someone out doesn't make you a publisher, it means that the person you kick out was bad for you and your business.

Free speech does not mean freedom from non-legal consequences. You can say whatever you want, but other people don't have to publish it or give you a place to promote it. Nobody is owed a platform.
It does mean they are, if they lose safe harbor, which would require radical policing against copyright violations and illegal content, as well as policing any orchestration of violent activity by radicals, which they may tolerate.

Your platform if it takes a political stance, and exercises editorial control should be classified as a publisher, and should be liable.

If someone is not breaking the law, you're an oligopolistic or monopolistic social media platform and you kick them out, the argument is that you should lose safe harbor. We will see if it is taken to court and where the coin falls. But if it falls on the right side, it will put an end to this nonsense.

At first it was they can have their own site so they can be excluded from everywhere else, now it is they don't even deserve to have their own site, what's next? This is how it starts with enemies of freedom, the enemies of mankind. Give an inch they take a mile.
Without these games most of my other games are third party. I can get them on PC or Xbox. Sony has a good first party line up but they don't appeal to me as much as the Japanese games do.
Their exclusives are only timed exclusives. Emulation cannot be stopped and you can always buy used for cheap years down the road.

No one is forced to buy these games, just like no one is forced to go to X site on the internet, this is the very thing that the founders knew when they decided to protect our freedom through a republic. To stop the majority from oppressing a minority, to defend the interests of a minority. While it does not apply to private companies, it saddens me to see them disregarding the minority for the interests of the majority. And it is ironic seeing those that supposedly champion against oppression celebrating oppression.

There are age restrictions, there are parental controls when it comes to minors. As for adults, adults should not have a nanny telling them what they can or cannot play.
 
Last edited:
Sure, I can see your point that if they were in financial trouble they might not have done it.

Disagree with the bold part though. Unfortunately, we see the consequences of this all the time now. People getting fired for the slightest un-PC comment on twitter, games including much more identity politics, moral posturing and SJW ideology. If only companies had the balls as you say to let it blow over after the first initial days. Just look at all the crap with Battlefield 5, Dead or Alive boob physics and now SJW journalists outraging on Red Dead Redemption 2 for its "troubling portrayal of women and minorities yadda yadda yadda" - luckily R* doesn't succumb to that crap and neither did Sony, at least in this case.

I don't agree with Sony censoring games but I don't see this as enough compelling evidence to say that people will pick the next Xbox over the next Playstation because of censoring niche titles.
I'm seriously on the verge of getting an X dependent on if and how Sony chooses to respond to this. If they do nothing and little else is censored then I may give them a chance but right now things look grim. For myself right now looking towards the nextbox, I'm more interested in what MS studios are doing. There should be some diversity in their lineup and if I have to get my "niche" games from Switch and PC, so be it. I still prefer having a console to main and play big 3rd parties on, and frankly MS seems far and away more vocal with the community. I'm a pretty big collector, both physical and digital, 700+ PS4 titles and I have a lot of friends in and out of work who love to get worked up about which faction they support. I'd enjoy sticking it to Sony over stupid practices and rock the boat a bit.
 
Sure, I can see your point that if they were in financial trouble they might not have done it.

Disagree with the bold part though. Unfortunately, we see the consequences of this all the time now. People getting fired for the slightest un-PC comment on twitter, games including much more identity politics, moral posturing and SJW ideology. If only companies had the balls as you say to let it blow over after the first initial days. Just look at all the crap with Battlefield 5, Dead or Alive boob physics and now SJW journalists outraging on Red Dead Redemption 2 for its "troubling portrayal of women and minorities yadda yadda yadda" - luckily R* doesn't succumb to that crap and neither did Sony, at least in this case.

I don't agree with Sony censoring games but I don't see this as enough compelling evidence to say that people will pick the next Xbox over the next Playstation because of censoring niche titles.
Yeah, definitely see your point about people saying un-pc things and getting fired. Also it seems that thing kinda swings both ways, but that has more to do with pro-PC people going out of their way to insult customers of the company they work for on twitter.

Honestly, the bolded is just conjecture on my part given of what happened in a previous console generation. People definitely won't choose Xbox over Playstation just because Sony is censoring some niche titles. My point is this little policy of theirs is another one a recent5 line of PR snafus on their part and if MS can offer a better alternative next gen, make things easier on developers and get the exclusive stuff like COD maps earlier etc., the mainstream might choose the NextBox over PS5.
I feel like people are underestimating how many of these niche games there are, especially since so many lump anything anime into the "niche" pile. Even if no one of them sells millions they are still smaller budget games where some devs can put out multiple games a year.

I own 209 physical PS4 games right now. 96 of them are anime style games and/or Japanese games with fan service. If Sony makes it hard for these games to succeed on their system by either banning them, making it hard to get them approved due to hurdles like language barriers or just not advertising them that would be roughly half the games I buy potentially moving away. The PS4 was my go to Japanese game system along with the Vita. Sony is just being absurd thinking it's a good idea to alienate this stuff.

Without these games most of my other games are third party. I can get them on PC or Xbox. Sony has a good first party line up but they don't appeal to me as much as the Japanese games do.

I have a Sophitia statue next to 2B, Tharja and Dragon's Crown Sorceress statues under my TV. I like sex appeal and if Sony rejects it I need to go. It's one thing to make first party games however they want, it's another to target these games with ridiculous restrictions. It's insulting.

This Sounds like the same type of "on top" arrogance Sony has had in the past and we saw recently with EA telling potential customers not to buy Battlefield 5. I don't understand the appeal of attacking costumers so openly but it is a trend these days, albeit one that is somewhat discouraged with some individuals losing their positions.
The bolded is a fairly significant number. I think the reason people viewed the PS4 so favorably in the early days of its' life is that they had so many JP and indie games come out for it instead of Xbox. I suspect there's more than a few people like you. The thing Sony is top dog right now but they're not the only game in town. I suspect we'll see more and more developers start making PC versions given how hands off Valve is right now.
 
Well look at that, didn't think I would live to see government censors make a comeback. Yes i know it's Sony doing this but the private sector is more efficient than the government anyways. The 40's and 50's and back. What's next 1984?
 
It does mean they are, if they lose safe harbor, which would require radical policing against copyright violations and illegal content, as well as policing any orchestration of violent activity by radicals, which they may tolerate.

Your platform if it takes a political stance, and exercises editorial control should be classified as a publisher, and should be liable.

If someone is not breaking the law, you're an oligopolistic or monopolistic social media platform and you kick them out, the argument is that you should lose safe harbor. We will see if it is taken to court and where the coin falls. But if it falls on the right side, it will put an end to this nonsense.
What nonsense are you speaking of? Companies no longer wishing to do business with people. The only way your plan works is to completely remove freedom of speech, to have a list of people you are allowed to associate with.

And again, safe harbor has nothing to do with who you do business with, only that if people upload content on your service, you aren't liable for it as long as you try to police/remove it. Nothing in the safe harbor statutes say that you have to do business with specific people.

Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright infringement liability, provided they meet specific requirements.[4] OSPs must adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement claim from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users when users claim that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also facilitates issuing of subpoenas against OSPs to provide their users' identity.
Nothing in there about having to do business with people who drive other business away.

This is not freedom of speech you are asking for, it's freedom from consequence, and consequence is required to be truly free, the ability to fail is required to be free.

If you really want the government to legislate speech, keep in mind that governments and ruling parties change all the time, and the thing you ask for now may come back to bite you in the ass later.

One more thing is that if these companies really took a political stand against some of this stuff, they would've kicked some of these people to the curb long ago. It was protests and boycotts that got them to change their minds, not a sudden realization that some of the people on their services are really fucking horrific.
 
Last edited:
Gonna finish my PC build this week and that'll be that. Sticking with switch and PC. Sony makes great games, but this policy is a no go for me. I have a ps4, but it looks like this'll be the last gen for sony, unless they wake up. Developers should have the freedom to make their games how they want.
 
I'm struggling a bit with this. On one hand I think games like this only tarnish the reputation of japanese games (as if some of you try to lump this crap with quality games like nier auto, dragon's crown and catherine). On the other hand I feel like if nintendo isn't censoring this then it's weird that sony would.
 
This is not freedom of speech you are asking for, it's freedom from consequence, and consequence is required to be truly free, the ability to fail is required to be free.
It appears that they do have some kind of immunity. But if even companies with the finances and size of gab and alex jones can't create their own platforms with their own money, this goes far beyond anything reasonable.

As I said, at first it was they can go make their platform, now it is they shouldn't even be able to have their own platform. Regardless of having an audience of millions, larger than many MSM companies.

This is not just not listening, this is gagging those you disagree with.
 
Last edited:
It appears that they do have some kind of immunity. But if even companies with the finances and size of gab and alex jones can't create their own platforms with their own money, this goes far beyond anything reasonable.

As I said, at first it was they can go make their platform, now it is they shouldn't even be able to have their own platform. Regardless of having an audience of millions, larger than many MSM companies.

This is not just not listening, this is gagging those you disagree with.
Boycotting something/someone is still freedom of speech. Many people in this thread are talking about boycotting Sony for their actions. You may not like it, but it is still freedom of speech in it's purest form.
 
Boycotting something/someone is still freedom of speech. Many people in this thread are talking about boycotting Sony for their actions. You may not like it, but it is still freedom of speech in it's purest form.
A boycott does not prohibit someone from having a platform or doing business, especially when it comes to an international entity. You think if people started boycotting amazon, mastercard would drop them, their hosting company would drop them, their domain registrar would drop them at the drop of a hat? This is beyond a simple boycott.

If you told me the sony boycott meant playstation would be discontinued from most stores, and the playstation store would be deplatformed we'd be talking about a similar case. But we all know a boycott has scant chance of doing such damage.
 
Last edited:
A boycott does not prohibit someone from having a platform or doing business, especially when it comes to an international entity. You think if people started boycotting amazon, mastercard would drop them, their hosting company would drop them, their domain registrar would drop them at the drop of a hat? This is beyond a simple boycott.
If enough people did, then yes, why not. Keep in mind, that for someone Amazon's size, it'd have to be a nine-digit boycott, but yeah. If a billion potential customers tell you that by supporting X, they no longer wish to do business with you, then you drop X. Alex Jones... did not require nearly that amount.

And you are right, a boycott itself does not prohibit anyone from doing anything, it's the choices of the people being boycotted that does, and again, a boycott is free speech. The only way to fight that would be to either block boycotts or to require companies to do business with toxic people who hurt their brand/drive away their customers, both of which violate several basic laws.

(also, keep in mind I'm using Alex Jones as a baseline here. Several other toxic people have also been tossed aside in the same was as Jones has, so there's no point in talking about all of them as well)
 
If enough people did, then yes, why not. Keep in mind, that for someone Amazon's size, it'd have to be a nine-digit boycott, but yeah. If a billion potential customers tell you that by supporting X, they no longer wish to do business with you, then you drop X. Alex Jones... did not require nearly that amount.

And you are right, a boycott itself does not prohibit anyone from doing anything, it's the choices of the people being boycotted that does, and again, a boycott is free speech. The only way to fight that would be to either block boycotts or to require companies to do business with toxic people who hurt their brand/drive away their customers, both of which violate several basic laws.

(also, keep in mind I'm using Alex Jones as a baseline here. Several other toxic people have also been tossed aside in the same was as Jones has, so there's no point in talking about all of them as well)
It seems to me that when it comes to the point of denying domain registration, payment processing, etc. we have an issue if even entities of this size cannot finance alternative competitors to provide for them.

If regulations are such that they can't create brand new competing payment processors, domain registration companies, etc. and at the same time it is allowed for mass coordinated discrimination, they've been effectively gagged. The government has effectively through regulatory technicalities done away with free speech online. I do not believe the government should have the power to use technicalities to get away with blocking basic constitutional rights. If they can do this with free speech, they can do it with other basic human rights, that is use technicalities to effectively eliminate such rights.

If they could create their alternate platforms they have millions supporting them, and could self-finance. No amount of protest could shut them down. That is why they're now been targeted at these weak points, to cut the flow of money from willing customers. Given their struggles it appears enough regulation roadblocks exist to interfere with the free market.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that when it comes to the point of denying domain registration, payment processing, etc. we have an issue if even entities of this size cannot finance alternative competitors to provide for them.

If regulations are such that they can't create brand new competing payment processors, domain registration companies, etc. and at the same time it is allowed for mass coordinated discrimination, they've been effectively gagged. The government has effectively through regulatory technicalities done away with free speech online. I do not believe the government should have the power to use technicalities to get away with blocking basic constitutional rights. If they can do this with free speech, they can do it with other basic human rights, that is use technicalities to effectively eliminate such rights.

If they could create their alternate platforms they have millions supporting them, and could self-finance. No amount of protest could shut them down. That is why they're now been targeted at these weak points, to cut the flow of money from willing customers. Given their struggles it appears enough regulation roadblocks exist to interfere with the free market.
Except that the government doesn't deal with domain registration, private corporations do. The government didn't tell Gab to delete content, GoDaddy did because they didn't want to be associated with them. As for payment, there are enough alternatives that anyone of them is going to err on the side of caution, especially when it was discovered that Gab is not only full of antisemitic content, but that the synagogue shooter posted there frequently. No company wants to be associated with that.

As for the other stuff, there are no reasons why they can't create their own payment processing services (provided the major card processors want to do business with them) or domain registration companies (again, considering that the high-level domain owners want their business), but again, this has nothing to do with some conspiracy to halt free speech and is instead is just the basic consequence of being toxic enough that nobody wants to do business with you. I really don't see this as some kind of slippery slope.

(On a lighter side, I did a bit of looking into various domain registration and discovered just how easy to get your own domain....and believe me, there are options)



Part of me wants to buy one of these just to own it
 
As for the other stuff, there are no reasons why they can't create their own payment processing services (provided the major card processors want to do business with them) or domain registration companies (again, considering that the high-level domain owners want their business), but again, this has nothing to do with some conspiracy to halt free speech and is instead is just the basic consequence of being toxic enough that nobody wants to do business with you. I really don't see this as some kind of slippery slope.
What do you mean high level domain owners? The number of domains is practically infinite, I'm not sure what regulations there are to become a domain name registrar but there are likely enough roadblocks to keep them from becoming one. You seem to be suggesting some entities own the entirety of the internet and you need permission from these entities to be on the internet at all.edit: As far I know there is the internet regulation agency, was it called ICANN, and it interacts with the registrars.

There is obviously similar roadblocks to them creating their own payment systems, credit cards, banks, etc

Btw, You know north korea has their own domain, right?
 
Last edited:
What do you mean high level domain owners? The number of domains is practically infinite, I'm not sure what regulations there are to become a domain name registrar but there are likely enough roadblocks to keep them from becoming one. You seem to be suggesting some entities own the entirety of the internet and you need permission from these entities to be on the internet at all.

There is obviously similar roadblocks to them creating their own payment systems, credit cards, banks, etc

Btw, You know north korea has their own domain, right?
https://whois.icann.org/en/domain-name-registration-process

I was thinking of something else when I mentioned high-level domain companies. All you need to do to get your own domain is to register one. It's something anyone can do, even people that many would consider horrible. Just look at how long Stormfront has been up.

In terms of them creating their own payment services, the only roadblocks would be whether the main card/payment companies (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and the such) would be willing to work with them. Technically, you don't have to take those, but if the majority of people use them, and you don't take them, then you probably wont be getting much money.

BTW, you know North Korea is a fascist (they claim Communist, but they don't act it) dictatorship that runs gulags and concentration camps right. They have their own domain, but it's not one the rest of the world really has access to. In way, it's a country wide intranet, more than the internet.
 
https://whois.icann.org/en/domain-name-registration-process

I was thinking of something else when I mentioned high-level domain companies. All you need to do to get your own domain is to register one. It's something anyone can do, even people that many would consider horrible. Just look at how long Stormfront has been up.

In terms of them creating their own payment services, the only roadblocks would be whether the main card/payment companies (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and the such) would be willing to work with them. Technically, you don't have to take those, but if the majority of people use them, and you don't take them, then you probably wont be getting much money.
Gab. The domain name registrar of godaddy, iirc, gave them a time limit of like one to two days to find someone else, and apparently terminated the domain registration they had paid for. Apparently there are clauses that godaddy can terminate service with you and annul the usual multiyear contract with them at any time for any reason, or so it would seem.

Other companies have had to move from one place to another. It would seem, they need not to register a domain, but to become a domain name registrar, or create a free speech domain name registrar.

As for payment many would support a free speech credit card alternative to the big players, we are talking millions. Despite the censorship, gab was growing, and alex jones was breaking record sales, and his app was going rapidly up the charts. Such a payment option would also help with adult entertainment, by providing a low cost payment option for these and other industries that have trouble getting service from more mainstream payment processors.

BTW, you know North Korea is a fascist (they claim Communist, but they don't act it) dictatorship that runs gulags and concentration camps right. They have their own domain, but it's not one the rest of the world really has access to. In way, it's a country wide intranet, more than the internet.
I gave them as an example to show there are those many would question but still retain domain. As for the horrors that occur, that is what happens with most communist regimes.

Sony is free to do as they please. But they will lose not only the fans of these games, but also many free speech advocates who will protest this.

Does that mean I won't buy a ps5? Well the ps5 is bound to be sold at cost or at a loss, and it can still play used games. It only means I'll move from buying brand new games, to cheap used games that have already gone several times through gamestop. I'll buy new games on platforms that do not censor.
 
Last edited:
Be careful what you wish for. The only surefire means to have a platform that doesn't censor, is to impede the company's legal right to choose what content they support.
 
And you are right, a boycott itself does not prohibit anyone from doing anything, it's the choices of the people being boycotted that does, and again, a boycott is free speech. The only way to fight that would be to either block boycotts or to require companies to do business with toxic people who hurt their brand/drive away their customers, both of which violate several basic laws.

(also, keep in mind I'm using Alex Jones as a baseline here. Several other toxic people have also been tossed aside in the same was as Jones has, so there's no point in talking about all of them as well)
In my opinion, we've reached a technological point where we need to rethink specific media services and how we handle them. That is, yes, the various social media companies are private companies. However, their services have become so dominant within our culture that they essentially serve as the public commons, a sort of digital Town Square. This is rather unlike any situation we've had to deal with before. Simply allowing this small set of companies to control 'allowable' discourse has problematic ramifications. Likewise, imposing government control over these corporations to stop them from controlling discourse also has problematic ramifications. There is no easy answer.

Sure, this year it's Alex Jones, a particularly unsympathetic example. That's no surprise , it's not like they would start with somebody everyone loved. at different points in our cultural history [ and potential futures] the speech and speakers that were banned may have been, for example, civil rights advocates or political dissidents. And while I certainly disagree with Jones on certain topics [ I don't know his position on many things], being banned from the public commons sits wrong with me. I might not like you, or what you have to say, but that doesn't mean I think you shouldn't be able to say it. And yes, that includes things that are potentially, or even certainly offensive. Simply pointing out that he can simply go somewhere else and that nobody has to provide a platform is far too simplistic of an answer, ignoring the changes in modern-day communication and culture.

That doesn't mean I have a good Solution on this one. I certainly don't want the government in control. And in my opinion large companies have shown they shouldn't have control either. I feel like this issue is almost bigger than both. Sort of like these companies need to somehow acknowledge that the power they wield in hosting our social networks transcends to some sort of public service. In the past, various technological limitations and competition helped to keep things in line. But it seems to me we've reached a point where we are past that.
 
Last edited:
I did not grasp the RDR deeper meaning of the Playasia tweet, but now I know:

RDR2 had an exclusive game designer who was developing for 1 year the testicles of the horse! Except the animation, according to weather temperature in the gameworldthey'd either shrink or expand!

I take boob physics and anime over this any day! Their bestiality perversions are on another level

https://www.shortlist.com/tech/gami...stic-horse-testicles-rockstar-scrotums/372294
 
In my opinion, we've reached a technological point where we need to rethink specific media services and how we handle them. That is, yes, the various social media companies are private companies. However, their services have become so dominant within our culture that they essentially serve as the public commons, a sort of digital Town Square. This is rather unlike any situation we've had to deal with before. Simply allowing this small set of companies to control 'allowable' discourse has problematic ramifications. Likewise, imposing government control over these corporations to stop them from controlling discourse also has problematic ramifications. There is no easy answer.

Sure, this year it's Alex Jones, a particularly unsympathetic example. That's no surprise , it's not like they would start with somebody everyone loved. at different points in our cultural history [ and potential futures] the speech and speakers that were banned may have been, for example, civil rights advocates or political dissidents. And while I certainly disagree with Jones on certain topics [ I don't know his position on many things], being banned from the public commons sits wrong with me. I might not like you, or what you have to say, but that doesn't mean I think you shouldn't be able to say it. And yes, that includes things that are potentially, or even certainly offensive. Simply pointing out that he can simply go somewhere else and that nobody has to provide a platform is far too simplistic of an answer, ignoring the changes in modern-day communication and culture.

That doesn't mean I have a good Solution on this one. I certainly don't want the government in control. And in my opinion large companies have shown they shouldn't have control either. I feel like this issue is almost bigger than both. Sort of like these companies need to somehow acknowledge that the power they wield in hosting our social networks transcends to some sort of public service. In the past, various technological limitations and competition helped to keep things in line. But it seems to me we've reached a point where we are past that.
I find two problems with this.

1: Any kind of governmental regulation would only serve to further cement these companies as vital, unreplaceable elements of life, instead of the potentially temporary replaceable companies that they are. Friendster and Myspace didn't stay on top forever, there's no reason to think that Facebook will be around forever as well. Same with Twitter. We existed without these companies once, we'll survive if they go away, and they don't need any official help to stay in business and in power.

2: You - are - not - guaranteed - a - platform. Nobody is guaranteed the right to be heard, only the right to speak freely, and trying to create laws to force these private companies to allow anyone to broadcast their message, whether they want to or not, is a terrible idea.
 
2: You - are - not - guaranteed - a - platform. Nobody is guaranteed the right to be heard, only the right to speak freely, and trying to create laws to force these private companies to allow anyone to broadcast their message, whether they want to or not, is a terrible idea.
AT&T was broken up for less, though, way less.
 
Be careful what you wish for. The only surefire means to have a platform that doesn't censor, is to impede the company's legal right to choose what content they support.
I find two problems with this.

1: Any kind of governmental regulation would only serve to further cement these companies as vital, unreplaceable elements of life, instead of the potentially temporary replaceable companies that they are. Friendster and Myspace didn't stay on top forever, there's no reason to think that Facebook will be around forever as well. Same with Twitter. We existed without these companies once, we'll survive if they go away, and they don't need any official help to stay in business and in power.

2: You - are - not - guaranteed - a - platform. Nobody is guaranteed the right to be heard, only the right to speak freely, and trying to create laws to force these private companies to allow anyone to broadcast their message, whether they want to or not, is a terrible idea.
Have you seen cigarette packages? These companies still claim to be unbiased while censoring, limiting visibility, shadow banning, etc. They should be forced to not lie to the public, there should be a strong disclaimer, that pops-up, and might even be required to be part of every page denouncing their bias, and potentially linking to examples of their bias some may not know exists like the shadow bans.

At the same time the government needs to intervene to ensure the existence of free speech payment processors and free speech domain registrars. Either they look into easing the regulatory burden or provide financing aid to those who are willing to provide service to free speech advocates.

If even wealthy individuals struggle to be anywhere on the internet, the internet itself is effectively censored, and free speech is effectively not possible on it. No one is allowed to speak freely on the internet. As for not being guaranteed a platform, you might not be guaranteed access to someone else's platform, but you most certainly must be guaranteed the ability to pay for a platform of your own with your own money, else you don't exist on the net.
 
Last edited:
Translation of the most interesting bits if you would be so inclined, please?
Here are a few comments that I could translate. Again, Chinese Mandarin is a secondary language and my proficiency isn't that great, so things may be inaccurate and I may change some things to try to match the tone.

這不如直接打白吧 不懂藝術的傢伙
"It's better to hit (metaphorically) these people who don't understand art where it hurts"
去聖光補丁.zip
"Holylightpatch.zip"
超白痴設定,為何要聖光
"This is really stupid, why is there this light?
快笑死,遮到只剩頭
"The way it covers everything but the head, I'm dying." (快笑死 directly means dying from laughter)
索尼你還是掰掰好了
"Bye bye, Sony"
這片要玩NS版
"For this game, play the Switch version"
被女權組織砲轟了嗎? 為什麼突然自我審查
"Was this getting blasted by feminist organizations? Why this sudden censorship?"
 
Another game has been censored. They removed the boob slider of the PS4 Version while it is totally uncensored on the Switch.

What a strange world we live in when Sony suddendly censors games far more than Nintendo....

https://gematsu.com/2018/11/neko-para-vol-1-for-ps4-removes-setting-increases-steam
What good does Sony think this is doing? Delaying games for months just to make them the worst version. I was going to buy this as I thought it wasn't going to be censored more than the Switch. I guess Sony saved me money!

The touch mode is intact? I thought that was what you couldn't do with Senran Kagura? I thought the tweet about this said that there was no white rays? The semantics of saying "no white rays" but adding more Steam than the Switch version is scummy.

No part of this makes sense, it's just confusion for confusions sake. I'm leaning towards thinking this is an intentional hurdle to discourage Japanese games from having any sexy content. Keep 'em on their toes, never let them know what you can or can't do so they self-censor to avoid delays or bans!
 
@Dunki

That’s really weird, Senran Kagura received different treatment. Wonder if it’ll be like this with every game that gets released on Sony, a game by game basis?
 
Last edited:
I think the reason people viewed the PS4 so favorably in the early days of its' life is that they had so many JP and indie games come out for it instead of Xbox. I suspect there's more than a few people like you. The thing Sony is top dog right now but they're not the only game in town. I suspect we'll see more and more developers start making PC versions given how hands off Valve is right now.
Absolutely agree. I personally don't care much about these games, but they're still a contributing factor to my purchasing decision which platform to get. I prefer to be on the platform that offers the broadest and most diverse portfolio of games to all kinds of consumers. This has traditionally been Sony for me. Quiet frankly, this was the only reason I bought a PS4 (because I don't care for Sonys 1P exclusives). The moment Sony stops supporting smaller japanese devs, I have no reason left to buy into their ecosystem. Good for my wallet, I will concentrate on PC & Xbox then.
 
Same sex, mind you.

PS4 had no problem support, promote and basically, celebrate Big Daddy Simulator a homosexual dating sim game, with the same ammount of sex scenes Super Seducder had.
Dream Daddy has zero sex scenes. It's basically a romance simulator and sex happens behind the scenes, or is implied that happened but you don't see it.
Super Seducer is a pick up and throwaway guide for sleazy guys. Very very different games.
 
Have you seen cigarette packages? These companies still claim to be unbiased while censoring, limiting visibility, shadow banning, etc. They should be forced to not lie to the public, there should be a strong disclaimer, that pops-up, and might even be required to be part of every page denouncing their bias, and potentially linking to examples of their bias some may not know exists like the shadow bans.

At the same time the government needs to intervene to ensure the existence of free speech payment processors and free speech domain registrars. Either they look into easing the regulatory burden or provide financing aid to those who are willing to provide service to free speech advocates.

If even wealthy individuals struggle to be anywhere on the internet, the internet itself is effectively censored, and free speech is effectively not possible on it. No one is allowed to speak freely on the internet. As for not being guaranteed a platform, you might not be guaranteed access to someone else's platform, but you most certainly must be guaranteed the ability to pay for a platform of your own with your own money, else you don't exist on the net.
The law could be used to the benefit of free speech.
Were the ESRB legally enforceable, they'd be able to say that games rated less than AO cannot be censored or blocked from release due to their content rating.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile on the "big" western mainstream media :
I think they are being smart for once. Usually NPC media antagonizes the fanbase and bring attention to whatever problem they want to "correct", only making things worse for them. Staying quiet about it and letting it poison gaming slowly is the correct course of action for deranged ideologues.
 
Dream Daddy has zero sex scenes. It's basically a romance simulator and sex happens behind the scenes, or is implied that happened but you don't see it.
Super Seducer is a pick up and throwaway guide for sleazy guys. Very very different games.
Recently on GOG and Steam you see detailed descriptions in the store page about the questionable content
Eg Corpse Party had this


MATURE CONTENT DESCRIPTION
The developers describe the content like this:

This title is a horror visual novel with point-and-click interaction. Contains excessive violence and gore depicted via full-screen art stills, textual descriptions, and Japanese-language voice-acting, specifically including the mutilation, torture, and murder of children. Also contains images of female anime-style characters with exposed underwear or cleavage, shown in restraints, or in one instance shown bathing together with strategically placed steam to cover up private areas. Numerous examples of foul language can be found in translated text, including slurs such as "b*tch" and heavy swears such as "f*ck."


Same for Super Seducer 3 developers description:

Frequent strong language and verbal description of sexual acts. no violence or nudity.

Consoles should adopt this too in their store page, adding additional descriptions instead of the ESBR

Though moral relativism should stay out of video games really