[Akalabeth Angel]

Superficially, no.  Practically, yes it is.  Anyone can host a packaged game and put it behind a paywall.  Steam is publicity and simplicity rolled into one.  Greenlight is the epitome of Steam's publicity offering, wherein prospective games metaphorically throw themselves to the masses to raise enough interest for their game to open up new sales avenues.  Whether the game actually gets greenlit is ultimately irrelevant beyond Steam's sales figures.  The game exists whether it is sold on Steam or not.  Steam taking something off greenlight is analogous to saying "No, you cannot use my billboard."

Mechanically Greenlight is Steam removing themselves from the approval process and allowing the fans to get games that they want. Games are eligible as long as they presumably do not violate any guidelines.

Their decision to remove the game is contrary to that system, basically laying rules or groundwork for how things should work and then making arbitrary decisions contrary to those rules. And that's bad because of not only Steam's overwhelming market share (one game cited allegedly had 96% of its sales on Steam) but because it's a betrayal of trust with both the fans and the developers.  IF you create a system and then ignore the rules of your own system then what good are those rules for?

If Steam is a store where anyone can enter their game and if the game being entered is not too dissimilar from other games already being sold then what grounds are there to remove it?

Before the post edit: What the hell are you even arguing right now?  Seriously.  Sit down and tell me what the disagreement between you and Mr. Vega is, because reading that quote chain makes me wonder if you know.

Your guess is as good as mine.
I referenced a video I believe that had Total Biscuit talking about Steam.
Mr. Vega for reasons unknown doesn't like Total Biscuit. He has yet to actually give a specific reason why except that I should research him.

I'm basing this off Jim Sterling (cause I'm not wading through the cesspool so AA can have his smoking gun):
https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/545052195453169664
https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/545052546164072448
https://twitter.com/GREENLIGHTGOLD/status/545053289079771137

What does this have to do with Total Biscuit?
Because he made a video about Hatred being removed? Did you watch that video? The video wasn't championing the game, it was questioning Steam on why it was removed without reason.  He like other developers he cites believes it'll be a pretty boring game from first impressions of gameplay trailer.

[TrashMan]

Superficially, no.  Practically, yes it is.  Anyone can host a packaged game and put it behind a paywall.  Steam is publicity and simplicity rolled into one.  Greenlight is the epitome of Steam's publicity offering, wherein prospective games metaphorically throw themselves to the masses to raise enough interest for their game to open up new sales avenues.  Whether the game actually gets greenlit is ultimately irrelevant beyond Steam's sales figures.  The game exists whether it is sold on Steam or not.  Steam taking something off greenlight is analogous to saying "No, you cannot use my billboard."

Not allowing something to get out IS censorship. Period. It doesn't have to be all-encompasing or state-sponsored.
And while Steam has the right to not sell/distribute what they don't want, it's still not exactly a nice thing to do. If I removed you from my forum/board because I don't like your views, I *AM* censoring you.

But all of this is pointless. Hatered is back on Steam, Gabe personally sent an e-mail to the developer with an apology.
Based Gaben.

[Grizzly]

So here's a question for you:
Volition pitches FS3 towards interplay.
Interplay refuses to support it, saying that there is no market for it right now.

Is this censorship?

[Akalabeth Angel]

So here's a question for you:
Volition pitches FS3 towards interplay.
Interplay refuses to support it, saying that there is no market for it right now.

Is this censorship?

I got a question for you,

Someone asks me to say "Ketchup" on a hand-written note
I say nothing

Is that censorship?

What if he asks me to say "Penis" instead?

[Grizzly]

Someone asks me to say "Ketchup" on a hand-written note
I say nothing

Is that censorship?

No.

[NGTM-1R]

Not allowing something to get out IS censorship.

Not allowing something to be made is censorship. Destroying all copies is censorship. Not allowing it to get out can be censorship if it is ideologically motivated and is done by a thinking being as a conscious choice. Even in that case certain ideologies like "I want to make a ton of money (and this will not help)" or "I don't want to be ashamed to show my face in the corporate boardroom ever again (because this will all end in tears)" are typically exempt from accusations of censorship unless first shown to be false.

In your example, accidentally dropping the painting into the river on the way to an exhibition is censorship; this is a clearly ridiculous situation.

[666maslo666]

It is FAR less serious than government censorship. But it is censorship still. So it is understandable why some people disagree with removing the game. Steam has a right to remove whatever they want, but that doesnt mean people cannot voice disagreement with their decisions.

Greenlight is supposed to put the choice into the hands of the community. Community said they want Hatred. And there are lots of other pretty violent games on Steam. Wide selection of games is best for the gamers so I dont think removing ultra-violent games is a good step. Now its Hatred, what will be next? Dont like it? Dont play it. Who knows, we may even see an excellent ultra-violent game made one day, thats not based only on creating controversy to succeed. Such game deserves to be on Steam, IMHO.

[Luis Dias]

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.

It's a terrible analogy, because the stores in question went to the trouble of actively denying access to the store (which isn't the same as a "billboard", sorry) because a couple of ideologue troublemakers decided these things were not kosher for the rest of us and shamed the stores into submission. You don't want it called a "censorship", I disagree but accept, for language should at least be a common thing between us. Call it as you please, I don't like it. Because if it starts with things that we both may well dislike (I have no love for Hatred, ar ar ar), the same arguments can be used against things we actually love.

And no the Indian case is still a very different situation. As I have stated, it's a worse situation than Hatred, but let's be clear about why there was no discussion regarding it: it's ****ing consensual that it's incredibly bull****. But as in many Indian issues, it's filled with homophobic politics, racism, class and fascist underpinnings. In other words, it's a very different culture that is still decades in barbarism in certain social issues. And because the issue is entirely consensual in these discussion boards and in twitter which are mostly western, then by definition there is no discussion about it. Why would anyone discuss what is consensual? The Indian censorship is bull****, their reasons are bull****, they should be ashamed, ****ing period.


e: Wait, I've changed my mind a bit on this issue. I think you are correct in saying this is an important case that informs this discussion, and I was a bit wrong declaring it unimportant because it is consensual between us. Yes, it is consensual, but here's an important detail: the reasons for it being censored (or not even distributed due to fear of it being censored) are abhorrent to our western values, but if we are allowed to take down games from stores because of our values, what is to stop others from doing the same with their own values? As I said above, what is to stop others from using the exact same arguments these high moral priests of social correctness use against the very games that you think are actually progressive and advancing your own morals?

Once you allow this kind of white noise chat about how certain "media" is "harmful" to our core ideological goals and should be "challenged" and attacked, boycotted and thrown out of stores, then you are effectively giving intellectual ammo to actual authocratic regimes to pull **** like censoring DA:I. And if you are going to criticize the government for it, then they will call you out for your hypocrisy.

Standing for Free Speech is something we should all be in the same boat, people. Get a load of the "horrible, gruesome, ghastly" Christopher Hitchens on it NAU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate. Topical!

please don't shoot right back with snark and sarcasm.

Like this?

Congratulations on totally missing the point of why he brought it up.

Thanks Lorric. Small note: the last time I did this **** I got a warning. I don't want to begin thinking that if this kind of **** is done by a mod against me, then it suddenly becomes kosher. Another note: while it riled me up it only did so for a second, so you don't have to worry Scotty it's all ok.

[Grizzly]

It's a terrible analogy, because the stores in question went to the trouble of actively denying access to the store (which isn't the same as a "billboard", sorry) because a couple of ideologue troublemakers decided these things were not kosher for the rest of us and shamed the stores into submission.

Considering Valve's official statement when they took it down (“We wanted you guys to know that based on what we see on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam. As such we’ll be taking it down.”), this was very much an internal Valve thing and not because of pressure from "Ideologue troublemakers" (whatever the hell that is).

[The E]

I repeat my earlier questions:
1. Do customers have a right to protest for or against decisions made by retailers?
2. Do retailers have the right to curate their offerings?
3. Do retailers have the right or obligation to follow the wishes of their customers?

[Luis Dias]

I'm sorry The_E, I had read those questions yesterday but it was late and I was already in bed.

All of those things are perfect legitimate rights. They are also strawmans, since the issue was never one of "rights". I issued a very particular concern on how certain ideological groups are increasingly bullish on these sorts of campaigns for they are being apparently successful here and there. I said that I don't long for the kind of a world where ideological groups here and there shut down the market for some games they don't like, as if they are entitled to make those kinds of decisions for me. I do not recognize their authority to do this, and yet they pretend to speak for all of us.

I never said that anything they did was illegal. Or beyond their rights. I'm not "taking away their rights", but not in the way that they were not going to "Take away their games": I actually mean what I say.

Stores are perfectly allowed to not have a moral spine. And I am allowed to despise them for it.

There was a campaign against Hatred, Joshua, and it is my firm belief that this campaign fueled the initial decision by Steam to drop the game.

[The E]

All of those things are perfect legitimate rights. They are also strawmans, since the issue was never one of "rights". I issued a very particular concern on how certain ideological groups are increasingly bullish on these sorts of campaigns for they are being apparently successful here and there. I said that I don't long for the kind of a world where ideological groups here and there shut down the market for some games they don't like, as if they are entitled to make those kinds of decisions for me. I do not recognize their authority to do this, and yet they pretend to speak for all of us.

But if we believe that everyone has the right to free expression, to gather a movement of likeminded people, and petition some entity to do something, then we must accept that there will be petitions we disagree with.

[Grizzly]

There was a campaign against Hatred, Joshua, and it is my firm belief that this campaign fueled the initial decision by Steam to drop the game.

Considering that Steam's did not make any reference to that campaign (which campaign?), this seems rather sillly, just as the assertions made by the game dev  about "We wanted to create something contrary to prevailing standards of forcing games to be more polite or nice than they really are or even should be." - What standards?  develops games where you can beat people up using dildos. GTAV is the best selling game in history. Call of Duty spouts it's western Jingoïsm increasingly with each installment. Hotline Miami is lauded among the indies. I see absolutely no evidence of "standards forcing games" to be anything.

[Luis Dias]

All of those things are perfect legitimate rights. They are also strawmans, since the issue was never one of "rights". I issued a very particular concern on how certain ideological groups are increasingly bullish on these sorts of campaigns for they are being apparently successful here and there. I said that I don't long for the kind of a world where ideological groups here and there shut down the market for some games they don't like, as if they are entitled to make those kinds of decisions for me. I do not recognize their authority to do this, and yet they pretend to speak for all of us.

But if we believe that everyone has the right to free expression, to gather a movement of likeminded people, and petition some entity to do something, then we must accept that there will be petitions we disagree with.

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that I should accept there are things in the world that I disagree with? I mean, what are you talking about? Are you saying I shouldn't disagree with these things because they are entitled to exist? I'm sorry The_E but I thought I was really clear in my last reply: I am actually very earnest when I say that I am not here "taking away your petitions", very much unlike certain people were about games. Their rights are not being trampled when I despise their usage of it.

Sorry, I just don't understand your point.

Considering that Steam's did not make any reference to that campaign (which campaign?), this seems rather sillly

The online campaign existed, Steam initial statement existed. They followed sequentially. You don't believe they are causally connected, I do.

[The E]

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that I should accept there are things in the world that I disagree with? I mean, what are you talking about? Are you saying I shouldn't disagree with these things because they are entitled to exist? I'm sorry The_E but I thought I was really clear in my last reply: I am actually very earnest when I say that I am not here "taking away your petitions", very much unlike certain people were about games. Their rights are not being trampled when I despise their usage of it.

Yeah, sorry, I think I was a bit confused myself there.

[Grizzly]

The online campaign existed,

Where? Google invariably turns me towards Gamergate when I google "campaign against hatred video game", whilst "campaign to remove hatred from steam" invariably turns me towards the news articles I linked in the OP (which do not talk about an actual campaign)

[Luis Dias]

You might be right and there not having been a coordinated campaign, and just disgust at the game and its existence. If it was just the latter, I'm both for it and smug at it, since that's the kind of controversy they were trying to get. I know a lot of **** went into twitter, and a lot of people tried to glue the "values" of this game into a certain Movement That Should Not Be Named, and a lot of people cheered when they learnt about Steam's (initial) decision, but I might have jumped the shark in seeing a "campaign" into all of those things.

[Mr. Vega]

What does this have to do with Total Biscuit?
Because he made a video about Hatred being removed? Did you watch that video? The video wasn't championing the game, it was questioning Steam on why it was removed without reason.  He like other developers he cites believes it'll be a pretty boring game from first impressions of gameplay trailer.

That was totally unrelated to TotalBiscuit. I was mentioning the psychopaths that the game is now attracting.

[NGTM-1R]

It is FAR less serious than government censorship. But it is censorship still. So it is understandable why some people disagree with removing the game. Steam has a right to remove whatever they want, but that doesnt mean people cannot voice disagreement with their decisions.

It also does not make steam censorious to do so as has been explained many times to the more obtuse residents of this thread. If Steam genuinely removes a game from Greenlight because they think it is a bad game (something they could actually stand to do more often by most accounts), that cannot be censorship by definition.

Censorship is the ideological attempt to deny access to certain ideas or forms of content. By your own admission no similar forms of idea or content are being pulled from Steam; your protestations that Hatred was being censored are necessarily weakened by that observation.

[666maslo666]

It is FAR less serious than government censorship. But it is censorship still. So it is understandable why some people disagree with removing the game. Steam has a right to remove whatever they want, but that doesnt mean people cannot voice disagreement with their decisions.

Censorship is the ideological attempt to deny access to certain ideas or forms of content. By your own admission no similar forms of idea or content are being pulled from Steam; your protestations that Hatred was being censored are necessarily weakened by that observation.

Thats a pretty strange definition. There is no need for censorship to be so consistent that ALL similar forms of idea or content are always removed. Even imperfectly applied censorship (censoring just one game and letting similar ones to be sold) is still censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.