[Mr. Vega]

Also, Luis, please do not start with the gamergate bull**** again.

I made a very obvious reference to it first. You can rebuke me too.

[Luis Dias]

The_E, would you please stop picking on me please, I didn't start anything.

Regarding the finantials of the game, I do believe that regardless of their ability to recuperate the investment without Steam, it does mean a giant amount of money being denied to the company. Regarding my longing for those times where they would say they wouldn't take away our games I was being true. If you recall, I did start a thread where we could discuss sexism portrayed in VG. I really long for a world where critiques abound everywhere. I don't really long for a world filled with ideological groups campaigning to get games out of stores. Those things are a wee bit different.

[Mr. Vega]

Didn't know developers have a right to money that supersedes the right of Steam to decide what it can or can't sell. And still no explanation why India banning a game earns no interest whatsoever.

[Scotty]

I'm likewise curious about why things that are relevant and cogent to the censorship discussion have been totally ignored.

[Lorric]

Why did you want to make this thread anyway?

For the same reason I make other threads in the "Discussion" forums. I like opinions.

Thanks.

Still no explanation why India banning a game earns no interest whatsoever.

Does there need to be?

If I want to post something of interest do I first have to stop and go on a hunt to make sure there's nothing more "worthy" to talk about first?

[Mr. Vega]

I'm likewise curious about why things that are relevant and cogent to the censorship discussion have been totally ignored.

I'm all ears.

[The E]

The_E, would you please stop picking on me please, I didn't start anything.

My apologies. I did not see Vega drag this **** into the thread, and was assuming that the sudden outburst of gamergate rhetoric came from you first.

Regarding the finantials of the game, I do believe that regardless of their ability to recuperate the investment without Steam, it does mean a giant amount of money being denied to the company. Regarding my longing for those times where they would say they wouldn't take away our games I was being true. If you recall, I did start a thread where we could discuss sexism portrayed in VG. I really long for a world where critiques abound everywhere. I don't really long for a world filled with ideological groups campaigning to get games out of stores. Those things are a wee bit different.

True, there is a difference. But, remind me, do consumers have the right to protest a decision made by a retailer? Do retailers have discretion over what to stock?

[Luis Dias]

Vega, That's not the same thing, in a way it's in a different level (worse), but if you want to bring a "dear muslima" into this, I'd have to confess I'm way more concerned regarding what he happened with Seth Rogans movie, Sony, north korea , how the us has already hacked NK to understand what happened, etc. Or how the ruble has collapsed.

Hatred is the topic of the thread.

[Scotty]

Congratulations on totally missing the point of why he brought it up.  He didn't bring it up because of its "worthy"ness, he brought it up because it's a genuine case of government censorship applied to a game and it's gotten literally zero discussion in a thread about censorship applied to a game where the primary discussion is about what actually constitutes censorship instead of, say, discussion about why that's good, bad, or in between.

I'm likewise curious about why things that are relevant and cogent to the censorship discussion have been totally ignored.

I'm all ears.

Here's a cool censorship test for you guys.

If a guy approaches me and asks to advertise on my billboard, which occupies a very prominent section of a heavily traveled section of major highway, and I refuse on any grounds to display the advertisement, is that censorship?

The answer is no.  Even if I have the only billboard visible from the highway, it is not censorship.

If a guy approaches me, etc, and I decide that his advertisement is abhorrent, tasteless, or any other descriptor and in doing so attempt to convince other proud billboard owners that this guy should not be allowed to display his advertisement, is that censorship?

The answer is yes.

Steam is not trying to get other distributors to shut down this game.  Steam is not doing anything besides saying "No, you may not use my billboard."

It is not censorship.

It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.

[Mr. Vega]

Why did you want to make this thread anyway?

For the same reason I make other threads in the "Discussion" forums. I like opinions.

Thanks.

Still no explanation why India banning a game earns no interest whatsoever.

Does there need to be?

If I want to post something of interest do I first have to stop and go on a hunt to make sure there's nothing more "worthy" to talk about first?

If this motivated by a sincere concern against censorship why is a supposedly developed country's government banning a game deserving of much less attention than one private seller deciding what they want to stock?

[Grizzly]

Hatred is the topic of the thread.

Actually, since Dragon Age: Inquisition's very progressive (for games) attitude to sex and sexual relationships can also be seen as an attempt to stir up controversy or a blatant disregard of what is considered politically correct, it fits within the scope of this discussion.

So here's an article for context.

It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.

Hmm. I completely agree with your Good Analogy and therefore didn't see the need to talk about it. If that's any help. It's good.

[Lorric]

Who says there even has to be any discussion? I would be surprised if anyone didn't think it was wrong. What's there to discuss?

It's somewhat frustrating that my (admittedly self-evaluated) Good Analogy got wholly ignored by the thread.

I liked it a lot, fwiw. But I'm not involved in the censorship discussion, which hopefully is over.

EDIT: Pretty much same reason as -Joshua- for not mentioning it. I thought it was bringing things to a smooth close.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Correct me if I'm misreading this, but it looks like DA:I wasn't banned, but rather that EA decided to pull it because they think it violates local law. It also sounds like Eurogamer and Kotaku think EA may have been overly-cautious in this regard.

Also, I obviously agree with Scotty's analogy because that's pretty much the same point I was trying to make earlier.

[Mr. Vega]

I would accept Scotty's position with a reservation that we need to try to see that a someone who wants the game can buy it somewhere.

[Grizzly]

I would either accept Scotty's position with a reservation that we need to make sure that a someone who wants the game can buy it somewhere.

That always was the case. The person asking Scotty to do stuff is free to put up his own sign at his own yard.

Correct me if I'm misreading this, but it looks like DA:I wasn't banned, but rather that EA decided to pull it because they think it violates local law.

Considering that EA has legal experts on their payroll, I am pretty sure that they know it violoates local law. As it stands, pre-emptive banning is still banning, and this really is India censoring certain content.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I would either accept Scotty's position with a reservation that we need to make sure that a someone who wants the game can buy it somewhere.

That always was the case. The person asking Scotty to do stuff is free to put up his own sign at his own yard.

Correct me if I'm misreading this, but it looks like DA:I wasn't banned, but rather that EA decided to pull it because they think it violates local law.

Considering that EA has legal experts on their payroll, I am pretty sure that they know it violoates local law.

Well, the article implies that the law is really vague, but IANAL (neither here nor in India).

As it stands, pre-emptive banning is still banning, and this really is India censoring certain content.

Yes, India's government is censoring certain content, but I'm just not sure if "company pulls product from India because they suspect it will be banned" can really be said to be the same thing as "India bans DA:I".

[Mr. Vega]

And it touches on another issue - as gaming audiences grow internationally there's going to be pressure to avoid stuff that would get your games shut out of certain markets.

[Scotty]

And it touches on another issue - as gaming audiences grow internationally there's going to be pressure to avoid stuff that would get your games shut out of certain markets.

Or... not, as EA has aptly demonstrated.  The fact that they've withdrawn from India's market with that particular game doesn't indicate a shift in gaming attitudes toward that kind of content.  In the short run it means that piracy of DA:I in India will be an order of magnitude higher than the rest of the world, and in the long run maybe India will lighten up a bit.

[Mr. Vega]

I'm not saying a shift has occured - merely that this stuff is going to come up more and more often.

[Phantom Hoover]

It's really fun to see liberals basing their arguments on the idea that a cartel has the right to do whatever the hell they like. You guys realise that the same arguments you're using to shut down discussions of censorship could equally well be applied to, say, restaurant owners in the South refusing to serve black customers?