Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

HATRED, aka Awor Surkrarz Simulator 2015

LundB

Mistakes were made.
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
4,160
a vocal debate about whether it was Valve’s place to make such a call.
The idea that it is not a company's place to decide what it sells provided the product is not illegal and the company does not have a state-enforced monopoly is utterly ridiculous, and actually pretty disgusting. That's a perfect example of "people ... imposing their personal political or moral values on others", so you should see the problem. Perfect example of the sjw 'freedom except for the other guy' attitudes.

With the definition of censorship you provided, not selling the game on Steam was not censorship in any way, as the game wasn't prevented from being made and sold to a wide audience, no matter how that article tries to spin things with 'b-b-but Valve have the largest market share abloobloobloo'. They still had plenty of YouTube views (among other things) for exposure, and there are plenty of avenues for digital distribution. Valve do not have a monopoly on PC gaming, and they do not have the moral duty to sell anything and everything or be evil censors.

What's next, major movie studios are guilty of censorship by not actively distributing X indie film, since they have majority market share? Ridiculous.
 

Alienman

Retro-Fascist
Patron
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
17,046
Location
Mars
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Codex Year of the Donut Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
The thing with gog is just so silly. Why take a morale high ground on this particular game? Trying to win over SJWs? It would be a much better bet to just sell it, and be a competition to Steam. But no. What are they gaining here? Absolutely nothing. We all know that the outrage-people don't even play games.

The only thing they have done is to make me think less of them (talking as a person that sees gaming a real hobby and actually buys games)

Feel the same about twitch, but twitch is decline compared to how justin.tv was. Good old times.
 

garren

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
2,036
Location
Grue-Infested Darkness
a vocal debate about whether it was Valve’s place to make such a call.
The idea that it is not a company's place to decide what it sells provided the product is not illegal and the company does not have a state-enforced monopoly is utterly ridiculous, and actually pretty disgusting. That's a perfect example of "people ... imposing their personal political or moral values on others", so you should see the problem. Perfect example of the sjw 'freedom except for the other guy' attitudes.

With the definition of censorship you provided, not selling the game on Steam was not censorship in any way, as the game wasn't prevented from being made and sold to a wide audience, no matter how that article tries to spin things with 'b-b-but Valve have the largest market share abloobloobloo'. They still had plenty of YouTube views (among other things) for exposure, and there are plenty of avenues for digital distribution. Valve do not have a monopoly on PC gaming, and they do not have the moral duty to sell anything and everything or be evil censors.

What's next, major movie studios are guilty of censorship by not actively distributing X indie film, since they have majority market share? Ridiculous.
Sorry bro, but when a company owns a sufficiently large piece of the market to be called a (near) monopoly, it has to tread a lot more carefully, unless it wants to attract possible lawsuits and antitrust action. You do understand how one company dominating the market can have adverse effects on consumers and the whole market alike?
 

Metro

Arcane
Beg Auditor
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
27,792
a vocal debate about whether it was Valve’s place to make such a call.
The idea that it is not a company's place to decide what it sells provided the product is not illegal and the company does not have a state-enforced monopoly is utterly ridiculous, and actually pretty disgusting. That's a perfect example of "people ... imposing their personal political or moral values on others", so you should see the problem. Perfect example of the sjw 'freedom except for the other guy' attitudes.

With the definition of censorship you provided, not selling the game on Steam was not censorship in any way, as the game wasn't prevented from being made and sold to a wide audience, no matter how that article tries to spin things with 'b-b-but Valve have the largest market share abloobloobloo'. They still had plenty of YouTube views (among other things) for exposure, and there are plenty of avenues for digital distribution. Valve do not have a monopoly on PC gaming, and they do not have the moral duty to sell anything and everything or be evil censors.

What's next, major movie studios are guilty of censorship by not actively distributing X indie film, since they have majority market share? Ridiculous.
Sorry bro, but when a company owns a sufficiently large piece of the market to be called a (near) monopoly, it has to tread a lot more carefully, unless it wants to attract possible lawsuits and antitrust action. You do understand how one company dominating the market can have adverse effects on consumers and the whole market alike?
Steam isn't anywhere close to being a legally defined monopoly for antitrust purposes.
 

evdk

comrade troglodyte :M
Patron
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
11,292
Location
Corona regni Bohemiae
Codex 2012 Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
a vocal debate about whether it was Valve’s place to make such a call.
The idea that it is not a company's place to decide what it sells provided the product is not illegal and the company does not have a state-enforced monopoly is utterly ridiculous, and actually pretty disgusting. That's a perfect example of "people ... imposing their personal political or moral values on others", so you should see the problem. Perfect example of the sjw 'freedom except for the other guy' attitudes.

With the definition of censorship you provided, not selling the game on Steam was not censorship in any way, as the game wasn't prevented from being made and sold to a wide audience, no matter how that article tries to spin things with 'b-b-but Valve have the largest market share abloobloobloo'. They still had plenty of YouTube views (among other things) for exposure, and there are plenty of avenues for digital distribution. Valve do not have a monopoly on PC gaming, and they do not have the moral duty to sell anything and everything or be evil censors.

What's next, major movie studios are guilty of censorship by not actively distributing X indie film, since they have majority market share? Ridiculous.
Sorry bro, but when a company owns a sufficiently large piece of the market to be called a (near) monopoly, it has to tread a lot more carefully, unless it wants to attract possible lawsuits and antitrust action. You do understand how one company dominating the market can have adverse effects on consumers and the whole market alike?
Steam isn't anywhere close to being a legally defined monopoly for antitrust purposes.
Who cares about actual laws, we have feels.
 

LundB

Mistakes were made.
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
4,160
a vocal debate about whether it was Valve’s place to make such a call.
The idea that it is not a company's place to decide what it sells provided the product is not illegal and the company does not have a state-enforced monopoly is utterly ridiculous, and actually pretty disgusting. That's a perfect example of "people ... imposing their personal political or moral values on others", so you should see the problem. Perfect example of the sjw 'freedom except for the other guy' attitudes.

With the definition of censorship you provided, not selling the game on Steam was not censorship in any way, as the game wasn't prevented from being made and sold to a wide audience, no matter how that article tries to spin things with 'b-b-but Valve have the largest market share abloobloobloo'. They still had plenty of YouTube views (among other things) for exposure, and there are plenty of avenues for digital distribution. Valve do not have a monopoly on PC gaming, and they do not have the moral duty to sell anything and everything or be evil censors.

What's next, major movie studios are guilty of censorship by not actively distributing X indie film, since they have majority market share? Ridiculous.
Sorry bro, but when a company owns a sufficiently large piece of the market to be called a (near) monopoly, it has to tread a lot more carefully, unless it wants to attract possible lawsuits and antitrust action. You do understand how one company dominating the market can have adverse effects on consumers and the whole market alike?
Industries that rely on physical distribution have to tread more carefully as a company with vast market share within them has significant control over the customer's access to the product. With digital distribution, even if a major retailer does not stock an item, its availability to the customer is not impeded, as there are near-infinite channels of distribution where location is a non-issue.

Valve are not anywhere near a monopoly, and do not have complete control over the PC download ecosystem. Without Steam, the game could still easily reach a large audience.

If being off Steam was a death sentence, EA would have gone under the moment they took all new releases off the service. That indie strategy game dude would also be dying in a ditch with no money. It'd be helpful to be on Steam sure, but Valve have no duty to help, they aren't a volunteer indie-game promotion agency.
 

A horse of course

Guest
The 'need to execute to heal' mechanic is forced edginess. Otherwise the game looks fine.

Not really, it's the same as the melee-kill-to-heal mechanic in spess mehreen, which was meant to encourage constant offensive close-combat strategies, rather than hanging back and trying to pop moles. The notion of "going postal" involves a constantly rising kill count, not hiding behind a car and trying to snipe cops for twentry minutes like a failed bank robber.
 

Metro

Arcane
Beg Auditor
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
27,792
The 'need to execute to heal' mechanic is forced edginess. Otherwise the game looks fine.

Not really, it's the same as the melee-kill-to-heal mechanic in spess mehreen, which was meant to encourage constant offensive close-combat strategies, rather than hanging back and trying to pop moles. The notion of "going postal" involves a constantly rising kill count, not hiding behind a car and trying to snipe cops for twentry minutes like a failed bank robber.
Well the game is primarily about shooting and not melee, right?
 

Metro

Arcane
Beg Auditor
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
27,792
Gentlemen, I played Monopoly so I can assure you I'm an antitrust expert. If you own Pennsylvania Avenue and North Carolina Avenue, you are simply not allowed to buy Pacific Avenue.
 

A horse of course

Guest
The 'need to execute to heal' mechanic is forced edginess. Otherwise the game looks fine.

Not really, it's the same as the melee-kill-to-heal mechanic in spess mehreen, which was meant to encourage constant offensive close-combat strategies, rather than hanging back and trying to pop moles. The notion of "going postal" involves a constantly rising kill count, not hiding behind a car and trying to snipe cops for twentry minutes like a failed bank robber.
Well the game is primarily about shooting and not melee, right?

The point is that Space Marine used healing mechanics to encourage behaviour befitting the protagonist and discourage typical Gears-Clone static shooting. Similarly, the protagonist of Hatred is meant to be on a killing spree, not simply engaging in shootouts with police whilst civilians run away and hide. Tying healing to executions ensures the player will constantly be moving from one target to the next.
 

Metro

Arcane
Beg Auditor
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
27,792
1347898926-imgp6846.jpg


Indeed.
 

KK1001

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
621
It is way, way too late to take the moral high ground on video game violence.

Do these people not realize that they've morphed into 90s suburban moms?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom