Support NeoGAF

[IpsoFacto]

An anime game centered around boobs is where they draw the line? OK...

 

[xenoriddley]

So you think a game where you undress children is reasonable content?

That's the thing though, is that they're not children. They're all 18 plus. The thing that they should have done to resolve this issue, is made it a magical college instead. Boom, instant fix.

 

[TannerDemoz]

That's the thing though, is that they're not children. They're all 18 plus. The thing that they should have done to resolve this issue, is made it a magical college instead. Boom, instant fix.

Yet they're clearly depicting children. Why have your characters dressed and voiced like that and holding teddy bears? Aesthetic is clearly under 18s. It's idiotic.

 

[xenoriddley]

Yet they're clearly depicting children. Why have your characters dressed and voiced like that and holding teddy bears? Aesthetic is clearly under 18s. It's idiotic.

Plenty of female characters when voiced by Japanese people sound like they're very young, because they raise the pitch of their voices. Also, are you telling me that an adult is incapable of holding a teddy bear? You've never seen a grown woman holding one?

 

[TannerDemoz]

Plenty of female characters when voiced by Japanese people sound like they're very young, because they raise the pitch of their voices. Also, are you telling me that an adult is incapable of holding a teddy bear? You've never seen a grown woman holding one?

Ha. That's a weak response and you know it is. Come on, dude.

 

[xenoriddley]

How exactly is that a weak response? I'm justing telling like how I see it. You see it all the time in anime and japanese video games.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Ha. That's a weak response and you know it is. Come on, dude.

I have to disagree. While I personally had no interest in buying this game and its fan service was over the top for me, I honestly don't see an issue with it. I can go on my TV and watch a show on the CV of teenagers with teddy bears and other stuffed animals in their room, talking about murder, sex, death, all while being anywhere between the ages of 15-18. Why is this suddenly a "taboo" thing in video games? I see actual teenagers in real life doing the same thing when I tutor them at home, substitute for their class rooms, or visit family members from across the United States (and some parts of Europe). We have shows sexualize teenagers, promote them in swimsuits, push them on stage to perform for thousands in skimpy clothing, murder each other, and more beyond that - all with the push of a button to turn on the TV or log into Netflix/HBO/Hulu. Shows that kids and teenagers watch daily.

So why is it a bad thing when a video game does it?

 

[nowhat]

So why is it a bad thing when a video game does it?

In my opinion, it's not. I may find the content objectionable and/or lame, but if a developer wants to do that its perfectly within their right.

But at the same time, it's up to the publisher/retailer to decide what they sell. Why is it a bad thing when they do it? Seriously - you think this game would have been picked up by Nintendo for example?

 

[prompter]

Yet they're clearly depicting children. Why have your characters dressed and voiced like that and holding teddy bears? Aesthetic is clearly under 18s. It's idiotic.

Right on. VSC was right on the money - "The game is explicit in its setting within a “school” environment and the majority of the characters are young girls - one child is referred to as being a “first-year” student and is seen holding a teddy bear. The game clearly promotes the sexualization of children via the sexual interaction between the game player and the female characters. The style of the game is such that it will attract an audience below the age of 18.".

Regardless of what the manual says, the characters are depicted as minors. This isn't about politics, it's about common sense. Good on Sony - people can always import/play the original release, anyway.

 

[Dr. Claus]

In my opinion, it's not. I may find the content objectionable and/or lame, but if a developer wants to do that its perfectly within their right.

But at the same time, it's up to the publisher/retailer to decide what they sell. Why is it a bad thing when they do it? Seriously - you think this game would have been picked up by Nintendo for example?

That is... understandable but not desirable. Personally I believe that they should have sold the game on their market and let the people decide if they were to buy it or not. However, my main issue I have is when the entire game has been scrapped for a western release or a translation. Unless something has changed, the game has been officially cancelled for an English release entirely. Unlike with Super Seducer where you could still buy the game on PC, Omega Lab is completely unavailable unless you import it from Asia and speak/understand one of the languages of the region. This cuts off the game for the vast majority of the western audience that would have otherwise purchased the game.

 

[nowhat]

That is... understandable but not desirable. Personally I believe that they should have sold the game on their market and let the people decide if they were to buy it or not.

But businesses just don't work like that. Sony may be the largest player in consoles right now, but they are far from a monopoly. There are other venues to get the game out (and the game already is out in Asia), so decrying this as censorship doesn't really work either.

As a fictional example. I'm a US farmer, who has just got the brilliant idea that instead of growing carrots in soil, occasionally fertilized, I'll grow them directly in manure instead. For extra authenticity, I want to sell them unwashed, for that real organic feel. Should Walmart stock my produce and let the market decide? Or can Walmart just say "you can fuck right off, we don't want your shit"? Personally I'm for the latter option.

 

[theHFIC]

if i had to wait 25 years to be able to finally play Night Trap on a Sony console, I'm sure everyone here can wait 20 something years for their titillating perv game to appear on the platform.. patience.

 

[InterMusketeer]

nowhat that's not a very good comparison, since Sony doesn't have to stock anything. All they have to do is allow the game to be sold (digitally and/or physically) and they will earn money from every copy sold. There's no investment or downside for Sony at all. Other than, of course, the fact that they would have allowed a "problematic" game on their platform. Which they already did. In Asia.

 

[siavash]

Yet they're clearly depicting children. Why have your characters dressed and voiced like that and holding teddy bears? Aesthetic is clearly under 18s. It's idiotic.

in Bully,you could kiss high school girls while touching their butt,how is that totally ok but not this?
also how is murdering thousands of people with almost realistic graphic in many games is alright but rubbing bunch of anime looking girl is crossing the line?

 

[Dr. Claus]

nowhat that's not a very good comparison, since Sony doesn't have to stock anything. All they have to do is allow the game to be sold (digitally and/or physically) and they will earn money from every copy sold. There's no investment or downside for Sony at all. Other than, of course, the fact that they would have allowed a "problematic" game on their platform. Which they already did. In Asia.

Also, the carrots can still be sold within America - just at a different location. Currently there is no place that sells the game in America, especially not one that can be played/read by the majority of the population.

 

[nowhat]

There's no investment or downside for Sony at all. Other than, of course, the fact that they would have allowed a "problematic" game on their platform.

Facing a potential PR shitstorm/public backlash isn't a downside at all? I think it'd potentially be a much larger downside than 30% of sales of this title (which, let's face it, is pretty much niche).

Which they already did. In Asia.

Different regions have different sensibilities, who'd have thunk? Releasing the game in Asia was a no-risk proposition for Sony. For western markets, it's not comparable at all. You may disagree with the outcome (and personally, this game just seems lame more than anything - and I quite enjoyed my time with Estival Versus, so I'm not adverse to anime titties), but from a business perspective it makes total sense.

 

[kunonabi]

Facing a potential PR shitstorm/public backlash isn't a downside at all? I think it'd potentially be a much larger downside than 30% of sales of this title (which, let's face it, is pretty much niche).


Different regions have different sensibilities, who'd have thunk? Releasing the game in Asia was a no-risk proposition for Sony. For western markets, it's not comparable at all. You may disagree with the outcome (and personally, this game just seems lame more than anything - and I quite enjoyed my time with Estival Versus, so I'm not adverse to anime titties), but from a business perspective it makes total sense.

People aren't going to boycott Sony or start some huge movement over letting the 1987787866778889th pervy anime game get a western release. Releasing the game wasnt going to have any negative effect on their bottom line or public image by any substantial metric.

 

[TannerDemoz]

People aren't going to boycott Sony or start some huge movement over letting the 1987787866778889th pervy anime game get a western release. Releasing the game wasnt going to have any negative effect on their bottom line or public image by any substantial metric.

1 - it would
2- look how much positive PR Sony has generated in media coverage by blocking this.

 

[iconmaster]

Guys, come on.

"The player touches certain points on a female character's body to arouse them," the VSC noted of one mini-game. "A successful action will activate a 'shame break' where parts of their clothing come off revealing more of their bodies.

"The player places honey on the girls' bodies," the VSC noted of another challenge. "A fantastical dog-like creature then proceeds to lick the honey off their bodies which causes them to become aroused. Like the previous mini-game, when they reach a certain level of arousal parts of their clothing fall off or vanish. As the dog licks at the honey, the girls respond with sexualised language."

But the main sticking point was the young age of the characters in question.

"The game is explicit in its setting within a 'school' environment and the majority of the characters are young girls - one child is referred to as being a 'first year' student and is seen holding a teddy bear," the VSC concluded. "The game clearly promotes the sexualisation of children via the sexual interaction between the game player and the female characters. The style of the game is such that it will attract an audience below the age of 18."

from Eurogamer

What did you expect to happen here?

 

[B_Signal]

People aren't going to boycott Sony or start some huge movement over letting the 1987787866778889th pervy anime game get a western release. Releasing the game wasnt going to have any negative effect on their bottom line or public image by any substantial metric.

The game being refused a rating in the UK had already been picked up by a right wing tabloid and the BBC back in March, referring to it as a Playstation game. The "sick paedo" game absolutely would have tarnished their public image if it had somehow been released

 

[Dr. Claus]

The game being refused a rating in the UK had already been picked up by a right wing tabloid and the BBC back in March, referring to it as a Playstation game. The "sick paedo" game absolutely would have tarnished their public image if it had somehow been released

As did Grand Theft Auto, Bully, and numerous other titles over the years. None of them "tarnished" the image of gaming, nor the systems they were released on. Just a few overly sensitive puritans who got in a huffy.

 

[NahaNago]

An anime game centered around boobs is where they draw the line? OK...

This is kinda the reason why I was worried when they bought Funimation. Since Sony doesn't really seem to be about that anime/Japan focused games or media for the west, even if a lot of the Japanese gaming companies like to put games on a Sony console.

 

[VertigoOA]

Looks like more anime pedo trash. Good riddens.

They lost nothing of value here. Only ones who lost are the amirox’s of the world jerkin it to underage cartoons while cuddling with their anime school girl pillows.



“Fan service” my ass. It’s “pedo service”

 

[B_Signal]

As did Grand Theft Auto, Bully, and numerous other titles over the years. None of them "tarnished" the image of gaming, nor the systems they were released on. Just a few overly sensitive puritans who got in a huffy.

While that's true, those games weren't banned, nor featured you rubbing school girls. Sony aren't going to put themselves in the firing line for this, why would you expect them to?

 

[xenoriddley]

While that's true, those games weren't banned, nor featured you rubbing school girls. Sony aren't going to put themselves in the firing line for this, why would you expect them to?

Grand Theft Auto features you having sex with prostitutes, though not showing, implies it with the rocking vehicles. You can go to strip clubs, and lets not forget Hot Coffee. Bully features underage kids making out with Jimmy full on groping asses and pulling them closer to him. This stuff is nothing new to gaming. The only difference here is that it's an anime art style.

 

[B_Signal]

Grand Theft Auto features you having sex with prostitutes, though not showing, implies it with the rocking vehicles. You can go to strip clubs, and lets not forget Hot Coffee. Bully features underage kids making out with Jimmy full on groping asses and pulling them closer to him. This stuff is nothing new to gaming. The only difference here is that it's an anime art style.

no, the difference is that this was refused classification and "promotes the sexualisation of children" according to the classification board

I'm not taking the stance VertigoOA is , but you aren't victims because you're an anime fan, stop acting like it

 

[xenoriddley]

no, the difference is that this was refused classification and "promotes the sexualisation of children" according to the classification board

I'm not taking the stance VertigoOA is , but you aren't victims because you're an anime fan, stop acting like it

Actually, it was rated Pegi 18 in Europe and rated M by the ESRB. It got ratings without censorship. So yeah, my point stands.

 

[B_Signal]

Actually, it was rated Pegi 18 in Europe and rated M by the ESRB. It got ratings without censorship. So yeah, my point stands.

It was refused classification in the UK by the VSC, it couldn't be sold here at retail, and presumably was the reason Sony didn't want it on their store.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43414617
"The game has also been refused a rating in Australia and Germany. PQube said it would also not be available in New Zealand and Ireland."

 

[Battlechili]

1 - it would
2- look how much positive PR Sony has generated in media coverage by blocking this.

There's been positive PR?
It's just kinda weird since Sony didn't get trouble for Gal Gun Double Peace or Criminal Girls. I don't think people even knew Sony vetted games in this manner.

 

[kunonabi]

There's been positive PR?
It's just kinda weird since Sony didn't get trouble for Gal Gun Double Peace or Criminal Girls. I don't think people even knew Sony vetted games in this manner.

All the pr stuff I've read has been surprisingly neutral but maybe Twitter is celebrating. The thing is this means that Sony cant plead ignorance when something objectionable does get thrust into the spotlight on their western stores. If they want to be this hands-on and play the dutiful parent than they have nowhere to hide now.

 

[Battlechili]

Looks like more anime pedo trash. Good riddens.

They lost nothing of value here. Only ones who lost are the amirox’s of the world jerkin it to underage cartoons while cuddling with their anime school girl pillows.

Amir0x wasn't interested in cartoons. He unfortunately had much darker interests.

All the pr stuff I've read has been surprisingly neutral but maybe Twitter is celebrating. The thing is this means that Sony cant plead ignorance when something objectionable does get thrust into the spotlight on their western stores. If they want to be this hands-on and play the dutiful parent than they have nowhere to hide now.

True enough. Though, as far as Twitter is concerned, see for yourself! I linked the announcement via twitter in the OP after all

 

[TannerDemoz]

All the pr stuff I've read has been surprisingly neutral but maybe Twitter is celebrating. The thing is this means that Sony cant plead ignorance when something objectionable does get thrust into the spotlight on their western stores. If they want to be this hands-on and play the dutiful parent than they have nowhere to hide now.

Very fair point and I didn't think of that. In this sense the move could be potentially damaging

 

[TheDuskwalker]

I really couldn't give a shit about this game, but things like this start a slippery slope. Let's not forget Sony is the same company that used to not allow games without English voice acting to have physical releases in America, a policy that didn't change to this gen (it's why you saw games like Warriors Orochi 3 with a physical 360 and Wii U release but not on PS3). I remember Arcana Heart on PS2 they had the remove all Japanese voice acting, except battle dialogue, from the game for it to have a physical release since by Sony's logic no voice acting at all was better than voice acting that wasn't English, which is more messed up when you consider Sony themselves released a game without English voices (Genji) on PS2.

Then they had that asinine policy in regard of 2D games that was all over the place for awhile too. Like SNK couldn't release there games stateside on PS2 unless they were bundled or 20$. Yet I don't remember either Arc or Capcom fighters ever being effected by either of these policies. Like they had these policies, but there was leeway depending on if it was themselves or they had good relations with the companies.

Now we have the crossplay issue that's currently Sony exclusive.

What I'm saying is, based on past policies, you don't want "arrogant" Sony defining what content you can or can't have. Hopefully this game just remains a isolated incident, you don't want Sony to start sticking there nose into stuff far less objectionable just because Sony doesn't agree with it, they'll happily bully companies that can't stand up for themselves while leaving the rest alone like they have done in the past.

 

[ChaoticBlue]

this game would not fly on any platform in america unless it was censored or get an AO rating.

 

[Mr Nash]

That's the thing though, is that they're not children. They're all 18 plus. The thing that they should have done to resolve this issue, is made it a magical college instead. Boom, instant fix.

I'm convinced this is something the legal department at companies that make these sort of games require in order to cover their butts. The artwork clearly has girls depicted as what anyone with an ounce of common sense would consider to be under age. The part in their bio that says the character is 18+ is nothing more than a wink and a nod to the audience. They're all in on the joke, but need those numbers in place should the shit ever hit the fan. Arguments saying, "B-b-b-but the game says they're 18+!" are nothing more than disingenuous pap or the ramblings of autists.

 

[A.Romero]

The only way this can be positive is if Sony is making this decision for their own values and not out of fear of the perceived backlash.

I hope more companies follow Valve and don't stop content for fear of hurting people sensitivities.

TBH I don't seem to find a lot of differences between this and let's say Senran Sakura.

 

[xenoriddley]

Supposedly, they're hoping for a PC release on Steam. Someone on the gamefaqs board was saying that they've been active on twitter, and that if they can do a PC release, they won't release the translation as they'll just be able to put on on PC.

 

[Dunki]

this game would not fly on any platform in america unless it was censored or get an AO rating.

I do not think this is true see Senran Sakura for example.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

I'm convinced this is something the legal department at companies that make these sort of games require in order to cover their butts. The artwork clearly has girls depicted as what anyone with an ounce of common sense would consider to be under age. The part in their bio that says the character is 18+ is nothing more than a wink and a nod to the audience. They're all in on the joke, but need those numbers in place should the shit ever hit the fan. Arguments saying, "B-b-b-but the game says they're 18+!" are nothing more than disingenuous pap or the ramblings of autists.

But when you can fuck your fire emblem dragon loli that is totally 1000 year olds is totally different right?

 

[Mobile Suit Gooch]

An anime game centered around boobs is where they draw the line? OK...

Anime tiddies are bad cuz they harmful to "real" women.

 

[B_Signal]

But when you can fuck your fire emblem dragon loli that is totally 1000 year olds is totally different right?

I'll be honest, I don't understand the relevance of this, Nash said he thinks the fake age thing is done knowingly, surely that's something we all agree on? Did Mr Nash make Fire Emblem or something?

 

[InterMusketeer]

Facing a potential PR shitstorm/public backlash isn't a downside at all?

There's no reason there should be any kind of outrage about this dime in a dozen pervy anime game. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Sony is suddenly afraid of this possibility when they've accepted numerous similar games on their platform, across multiple regions. A real shame, in any case.

Different regions have different sensibilities, who'd have thunk? Releasing the game in Asia was a no-risk proposition for Sony. For western markets, it's not comparable at all. You may disagree with the outcome, but from a business perspective it makes total sense.

I just think it's inconsistent. If you're going to ban a game due to ideologic reasons, you should be consistent and apply it throughout your entire company. Not just the western branch(es).

 

[B_Signal]

There's no reason there should be any kind of outrage about this dime in a dozen pervy anime game. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Sony is suddenly afraid of this possibility when they've accepted numerous similar games on their platform, across multiple regions. A real shame, in any case.


I just think it's inconsistent. If you're going to ban a game due to ideologic reasons, you should be consistent and apply it throughout your entire company. Not just the western branch(es).

remember though, this had been refused classification, and had had stories written about it in the press. Sony clearly have no real problem with 'pervy' games, the Vita is evidence of that

I disagree with your last point. If you're selling in different regions it makes sense to tailor things to suit tastes

 

[cireza]

This game is not okay for Sony, but Dungeon Travelers 2 was totally fine.

How about trying to be consistent ?

What's the point of PEGI and ESRB if console manufacturers can come in and say no to a game "just because they decided it was not okay for them".

Saying that you don't want Adult Only content on your platform seems totally fine. But there are companies whose work is actually to rate the games. If this game was rated M, and can still be cancelled by Sony, what's the point of the existence of PEGI, ESRB and whatever other classification company ?

How about letting people make their own purchase decisions by taking into account the actual ratings ?

 

[InterMusketeer]

remember though, this had been refused classification, and had had stories written about it in the press. Sony clearly have no real problem with 'pervy' games, the Vita is evidence of that

But the game was rated in the end anyway, right? Don't see how any of this matters then. Gmaes get bad press all the time for a variety of reasons and Sony never seems to care about any of that. GTAV got plenty of bad press, why didn't they ban that game from being released?

I disagree with your last point. If you're selling in different regions it makes sense to tailor things to suit tastes

That's fine. I stand by my point though. If you're doing something due to ideological reasons (IE we think people shouldn't be playing this game because it's """"""""harmful""""""""") then you should apply this in the entirety of your company. It would be pretty hypocritical for example, if a company decided that poluting the earth is bad, but only decided to stop doing it in one region. If Sony truly believes this game's content is harmful, it's harmful everywhere, not just in western countries.

 

[B_Signal]

But the game was rated in the end anyway, right? Don't see how any of this matters then. Gmaes get bad press all the time for a variety of reasons and Sony never seems to care about any of that. GTAV got plenty of bad press, why didn't they ban that game from being released?

It was refused classification by the VSC in the UK, I don't know the situation in Germany, New Zealand, Belgium, Ireland, wherever else where I think it was refused classification (I'm on my phone so don't take that list of countries as gospel), but it means it can't be sold at retail in the UK.

That's not a problem for Steam, and if PQube hadn't tried to get a certificate for retail we probably wouldn't be posting in a thread about this game, but I suspect that was why Sony didn't want it.

As for GTA, because people keep bringing it up, no one is saying bad press is enough to scare off Sony. Gta got a rating, this didn't and Sony aren't going to go to bat for it. That's the difference

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

I'll be honest, I don't understand the relevance of this, Nash said he thinks the fake age thing is done knowingly, surely that's something we all agree on?

Sorta sure. People cherry pick, this isn't a new thing and is something the japenese do alot across their games. (the this person is totally x years) Something more recent would be Xenoblade Chronicles 2. Like Nia for example. Which looks 14 at best and Rex which is paired with a somebody that is waaaaay older than him. Just saying.

It was refused classification by the VSC in the UK, I don't know the situation in Germany, New Zealand, Belgium, Ireland, wherever else where I think it was refused classification (I'm on my phone so don't take that list of countries as gospel), but it means it can't be sold at retail in the UK.

That's not a problem for Steam, and if PQube hadn't tried to get a certificate for retail we probably wouldn't be posting in a thread about this game, but I suspect that was why Sony didn't want it.

As for GTA, because people keep bringing it up, no one is saying bad press is enough to scare off Sony. Gta got a rating, this didn't and Sony aren't going to go to bat for it. That's the difference

GTA is backed by that Rockstar money. IMO that game should be AO.

 

[InterMusketeer]

It was refused classification by the VSC in the UK, I don't know the situation in Germany, New Zealand, Belgium, Ireland, wherever else where I think it was refused classification (I'm on my phone so don't take that list of countries as gospel), but it means it can't be sold at retail in the UK.

It was refused in Australia, the UK and Germany. Other PEGI countries gave it an 18+ rating, and it was also rated without issue in the US.

Gta got a rating, this didn't and Sony aren't going to go to bat for it. That's the difference

Well, it did get a rating. In most countries. Could've just sold it digitally in the countries where it's allowed. That has nothing to do with batting for anything.

 

[B_Signal]

It was refused in Australia, the UK and Germany. Other PEGI countries gave it an 18+ rating, and it was also rated without issue in the US.


Well, it did get a rating. In most countries. Could've just sold it digitally in the countries where it's allowed. That has nothing to do with batting for anything.

Sony didn't pick this out of the air to refuse to sell. You're looking for a reason why Sony wouldn't allow it on the store, I think it's easy to conclude this is it. Whether they have a blanket policy about local rating boards taking precedent over digital, they didn't fancy any pr headache, or they just couldn't be arsed limiting sale in some countries and not others (assuming they felt they had to) only Sony know, but the point is there's reasons Omega Labyrinth got singled out and others didn't

 

[InterMusketeer]

Sony didn't pick this out of the air to refuse to sell. You're looking for a reason why Sony wouldn't allow it on the store, I think it's easy to conclude this is it. Whether they have a blanket policy about local rating boards taking precedent over digital, they didn't fancy any pr headache, or they just couldn't be arsed limiting sale in some countries and not others (assuming they felt they had to) only Sony know, but the point is there's reasons Omega Labyrinth got singled out and others didn't

I personally just don't think those are very valid reasons. Sony comes off as either crazy, weak-willed or lazy. Not a good look regardless of the scenario.

Again, obviously they can do whatever they want. It's their platform. I just disagree with their decision, and making pointless posts about it on the internet is about as much I can do about it.