Not sure if this is appropriate for general, or the videogame forum but...

Valve removed the game "Hatred" (Link: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/16/hatred-steam-questions-valve)

As a developer the developer of Bad Taste (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=241984931) I had some thoughts on this matter I wanted to get out since I feel it could affect my current, & future projects (and also relates to Tom taking down "The slaying of sandy hook", and appearing on the documentary "playing columbine"):

Steam is a private company and as such has the right to refuse game projects at it's sole discretion, and I doubt that anyone would be as pissed if the game "rapelay" was removed from steam greenlight.

That said it does come off as a hypocritical move given that Gabe Newell said in an interview with computerandvideogames.com that "Mario64" convinced him that games were "art". (Source: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/296735/features/gabe-newell-my-3-favourite-games/?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-General-RSS)

If that is the position he took, and those are the principles that steam was founded under, it's a highly regressive move to remove the game "Hatred" from the service, as it both undermines and is detrimental to videogames as an art form.

Hatred may not be everyone's cup of tea, but make no mistake it is art, and should be treated as such. Steam denying "Hatred" the ability to be released due to it's controversial content, through what is the most popular distribution service for games, sends a message to game developers that difficult and risky content won't be supported by the "mainstream", and thus may change the kind of content game developers choose to produce.

Speaking purely on my own behalf as a game developer, there are themes that are very risky to deal with in high budget games if you plan on making your money back, and this decision by steam adds another barrier for developers wishing to deal with these themes. Most problematic as a developer it indirectly implies that video games are not able to deal with controversial content that are art forms can deal with.

Pressure from outside "peer" groups have already caused some developers to remove content from games, the developers of "Hotline Miami 2" for example
decided to remove a rape scene from the game due to the controversy it caused. In that case however the content they removed was at their discretion, and at least they would have been able to publish their game with the rape scene intact should they have decided to do so. (source: http://kotaku.com/sex-assault-scene-pulled-from-hotline-miami-2-demo-1260886991).

This brings up another question, are some themes too taboo for video games? And if so what are these themes, and why? Are video games somehow inferior as an art form that they can't deal with difficult themes such pedophilia, mass murder, and current tragic events, where as in movies, art, and literature these themes are more permissible? Should developers only deal with these themes in a specific manner, instead of in any way they choose lest they run the risk of being denied access to sell their game by the big distribution networks that are essential for developers to recoup the exorbitant costs to make a game?

People have classified "Hatred" as a horror game, which I feel is a fair description, the main purpose of horror has always been to make people uncomfortable by forcing them to confront things they would prefer not to think about.

"Hatred" I feel has successfully done this through it's use of nihilistic violence, it could be a genre masterpiece, or it could be trash.

Regardless now it's being denied the opportunity to be played, and discussed on a service which seems content to promote games as an art form. If a steam spokesperson just cut the ostentation and said "we won't support "Hatred" because it would hurt our company bottom line" at least I could respect them for being honest.

Until then, this decision comes off as a hypocritical gesture given that steam carries other games which have been demonized, and classified as "murder simulators" previously in the media, "Manhunt", "Postal", and "Hotline Miami". Why support these games, which are ostensibly the same thing?

And while I feel most will concede that valve has no obligation to distribute any game it doesn't want to, I feel it has the responsibility to do so if only because it is the largest distribution platform out there and would be sending a clear and open message to everyone that games are art, and can deal with subject matter that any other art form can, even if it is distasteful.

Their decision also comes of as a didactic, and patronizing move to it's customers who wish to play the game, and voted in majority to get the game on the service (Hatred was ranked #7 out of all greenlight games on it's first day on greenlight, and had a 93% approval rating). Are adults not intelligent enough to make their own decisions in regards to the media they wish to consume?

And more troubling with 93% of greenlight voters wishing to see the game on greenlight, why is steam capitulating to the 7% of people who don't want to see the game on steam? Why is it that this small but vocal minority has so much power to affect what the majority wishes to see? (source:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-12-15-controversial-mass-murdering-game-hatred-appears-on-steam-greenlight).

If it's not a vocal minority that caused Valve to take down "Hatred" then the issue is even more distressing because Valve as a gatekeeper has decided to act as a moral arbiter, deciding to in turn neglect the community that wants the game, and helped the steam platform to flourish.

It's one thing to take down a game if the majority of the community that helped create your business decides it doesn't want to support it (it's still not the right move if you want to promote games as art), it's another thing completely to ignore them. This is same community that magnanimously stood behind, and defended valve when it was having controversy issues of its own, like with the Australia "Left4Dead" release, so much so that they became vocal enough to get Australia to introduce an 18+ rating for games after years of tireless campaigning. (http://techgeek.com.au/2014/01/03/one-year-r18-changed-anything/)

These are questions, and issues that gamers, developers, and hopefully steam will consider if we want to continue to promote the "games are art" platform… Since not all art is meant to be pleasant...

why are these videogames always about fighting and hurting people? enough already. we get it

I'm not really sure what my perspective on the matter is just yet. On the one hand, the game is about wanton killing and destruction, and I personally feel that a game should never have its main goal be the death and destruction of others. Even if death and destruction is a central theme in the game, it can be redeemed to me with the introduction of some overall goal (i.e. stop the bad guy, rescue this person, etc).

On the other hand, Valve has all the right to remove the game from its system. Valve is a private company and has all the right to do that. The only drawback to that conclusion is that Valve also coincidentally owns 90% of the PC gaming market, so they could pretty much do whatever they like to whatever they like, and I'm not a fan of that prospect.

In the end I suppose I would say I understand where Valve is coming from, and I understand it is within their right to remove the game. The company that produced Hatred will simply have to publish their game elsewhere.

There are games on Steam that are bad fangames of Sonic (Freedom Planet)
There are games on Steam where you shoot an airport filled with innocent unarmed civilians for the sake of the edge (MW2)
There are games on Steam where the goal is just to cause as much as mayhem as possible to civilians (GTA, Saint's Row, etc.)
There are games on Steam where the games where originally too violent to be sold in many stores like Postal and Manhunt/Manhunt2
There are games that school shooter have played that are on Steam. (Doom, Quake)

This whole situation cements more that Valve is a bad game company that isn't that cracked up to be what people think it is. This is also bad for the gaming industry in general considering Valve has a practical monopoly on the PC industry, and if your game doesn't get on Steam at this point in the PC market. You won't make as much money and are more subject to pirating.

i think it's totally justifiable. though valve is such a reputable source of good games it seems Hatred was made by a bunch of depraved weirdos

Personally, I would have kept the game, but I understand why they did what they did. Hatred is pretty much nothing more than casual slaughter taken seriously by a MC that by all rights should be put down before he even get his hands on a gun. Free speech is one thing, but intentionally trying to create something that has no artistic merit and is taken so seriously means that they are abusing it, unintentionally or not.

Honestly, the only reasons why I would keep this game is for shock and awe, (in other words, click bait) and a teaching lesson that serious grimdark aesthetic with no point is not necessarily a good thing, at least Warhammer 40k had a method to their madness, and the fact that even the creators don't take it seriously in spite of the bleakness proves this.

Campy-ass game. It looked stupid as hell.
It's not art-- doesn't feel like there was any heart put into it. It's just a parody of senseless violence and the fact video games have been blamed for causing mass shootings.

I think it is stupid to remove any game from Valve. Keep all the games up.

Hatred isn't super duper evil or anything. It's just boring. Postal 2 made it on steam (and it should) and postal 2 is a lot more offensive than Hatred. If depression quest can get on steam, why can't Hatred, when Hatred gets a shitload of upvotes? Valve is run by pussies and anyone who legit gets offended by hatred would probably spontaniously combust if they saw ED's offended article.

I think it's a good thing though, my buddies at DC shouldn't let the moneygrubbers at valve get any $ out of their game.

Might be a shame if the game didn't look bland and cringey

At 12/16/14 09:46 PM, NGPulp wrote: Campy-ass game. It looked stupid as hell.
It's not art-- doesn't feel like there was any heart put into it. It's just a parody of senseless violence and the fact video games have been blamed for causing mass shootings.

No. It *is* art. Just because you happen not to like a particular piece of art doesn't make it "not art". I'm saying nothing as to if this is "good art" or "bad art" but it *is* art.

That said, I don't really care. Valve, a company, is free to sell or promote or allow or not allow whatever they want. Don't like it? They're under no obligation to host anyone's games.

The same could be said for Newgrounds as well in that at least some games have been removed for similar reasons. And again Newgrounds is under no obligation to host anyone's games and you are under no obligation to put your games on Newgrounds or Steam either. If you choose to do so, you are under their discretion.

Solution? The company should make the game directly buyable from their own website if Steam won't allow it.

At 12/16/14 11:18 PM, Zachary wrote: Back on Steam :)

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=356532461

now i understand the saying, "no such thing as bad press"

At 12/16/14 11:18 PM, Zachary wrote: Back on Steam :)

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=356532461

So the 'decision' is a marketing trick.

At 12/16/14 10:21 PM, Jester wrote: Might be a shame if the game didn't look bland and cringey

It is not released yet. I'd advise waiting to learn more about the game before simply dismissing it.

At 12/16/14 11:18 PM, Zachary wrote: Back on Steam :)

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=356532461

This is literally the edgiest thing I've ever seen.

At 12/16/14 04:46 PM, Zachary wrote: Any company is going to try their best to avoid relevant controversy. And while Valve has the right to take the game down, I wish they had the backbone to leave it up, especially when the users were voting overwhelming yes on it.

well postal 2 is up on steam.

At 12/16/14 11:18 PM, Zachary wrote: Back on Steam :)

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=356532461

My faith is restored, and I take all the credit for this momentous victory, just kidding.

At 12/16/14 11:56 PM, Sectus wrote:

At 12/16/14 10:21 PM, Jester wrote: Might be a shame if the game didn't look bland and cringey

It is not released yet. I'd advise waiting to learn more about the game before simply dismissing it.

Well, no; it's clearly a repetitive little game with no artistic passion of any kind made for shock value that didn't even last through the trailer. There's no story to be compelled by because the game is "kill people until you die, then repeat." Even if the game was self-aware and satirical, there's nothing to the gameplay and there's no way it wouldn't get real old after playing it for 5 minutes once you've shot all the guns and seen all the execution animations.

sends a message to game developers that difficult and risky content won't be supported by the "mainstream", and thus may change the kind of content game developers choose to produce.

Completely agree. I enjoyed hatred.

What makes Hatred so different from other games? For fuck sakes Grand Theft Auto is the most controversial game out there and I'm pretty sure most of the games on steam are potentially controversial too. This is stupid.

At 12/17/14 07:22 AM, ManDeep wrote:

At 12/17/14 06:17 AM, Jester wrote:

it's clearly a repetitive little game

What do you think is better: To draw conclusions before or after the game is out?

The whole job of a videogame trailer is to let the game flex its muscles and give us a taste of the wide range of cool shit we get to do in the game. All the Hatred trailer showed was some vague and stupid exposition followed by the guy running around shooting people with an assault rifle with little executions thrown in, so it's pretty safe to conclude either that's about all there is to it or the trailer was made by the worst ad director in the world. It's not fair to have somebody look at a far-away pile of shit through some binoculars and then expect them to walk up close to it and see if it's still a pile of shit at close range.

At 12/17/14 03:32 PM, ManDeep wrote:

Anyway, i'm not gonna start judging it until i've read the reviews once it comes out. It's probably shit, but i might be pleasantly surprised. The gameplay might be addicting, who knows. I don't know for sure, you don't know for sure either. I'm not gonna draw a final conclusion from a trailer that's one and a half minute long, that'd be retarded. Telling someone who doesn't wish to draw conclusions from a trailer that he is in the wrong and that the game is shit is just silly.

I agree; every sign it's given me has felt like a huge red flag and I very comfortably feel like there's no way it's not going to be horrible, but it's possible that everyone in charge of the trailer did indeed have no idea what they were doing with it and it'll turn out to be a lot of fun. Dead Island, for example, looked very good and then absolutely wasn't, albeit the big trailer was cinematic rather than gameplay. I just think it's a fairly safe bet that a game with a gameplay trailer that looks utterly uninteresting won't end up having a whole bunch of cards up its sleeve on release. Might be entertaining enough if the game doesn't take itself seriously at all, I guess.

At 12/17/14 03:36 PM, ManDeep wrote:

You skillfully avoided my question though.

I totally didn't do it on purpose but I guess I should consider a political career

What do you think is better: to draw conclusions before or after the game is out? Pick one.

I do always wait for reviews before I decide whether or not i'm going to get a thing because there's been several occasions, like with the fairly recent game Bound By Flame, that I've been certain a thing would be amazing before it turned out to be an abomination. Same reason I don't pre-order. That being said, I definitely think it's a more pure approach to just watch a trailer, form my own opinion, and then probably enjoy the final product more than I would otherwise because i'm taking it in free of the thoughts of others, and that's a thing I'd like to do more often with games and movies, but when i'm spending my money I want to be sure I won't regret it.

Basically I'd say it depends on whether you'd rather be adventurous or go with the safer bet. I can't afford adventure, so I draw my conclusions once something's out and I can see what other people are saying about it.