Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday May 28 2018, @02:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the not-happy dept.

School Shooting Game Angers Steam Users, Developer 'Likely' Changing It

Earlier this week, a game called Active Shooter appeared on Steam. It'd be nothing more than another heap of hacked-together pre-purchased assets—or an "asset flip," as they're known on Steam—if not for its subject matter. It's about mass shootings.

The unreleased game's Steam store page describes it as a "dynamic S.W.A.T. simulator" in which you play as a shooter, a S.W.A.T. team member trying to neutralize them, or a civilian. Its trailer depicts a player running down school halls and through classrooms, indiscriminately murdering teachers until a S.W.A.T. team shows up.

Complaints about the game have been fierce, and yesterday the person behind the game said they'll probably remove the option to play as the mass shooter. Almost as soon as the game's store listing went up, Steam users took to the game's forums to voice their distaste.

The developer will send "press review" copies out on May 30.

The Hill mistakenly claimed that Active Shooter is "created by video game company Valve" (they have since corrected their article).

Recently, Valve made headlines when it demanded that developers remove "pornographic content" from visual novel games. Some developers/publishers have since received apologies and their games are under re-review.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @02:37AM (27 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 28 2018, @02:37AM (#684982) Journal

    Let me see who's side you are:
    - the game author has the right to publish the game without any censorship pressure
    - the gamers/reviewers have the right to voice their distaste and request Valve to drop the game (their request is still free speech, is it not?)

    This should be interesting.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday May 28 2018, @02:43AM (2 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday May 28 2018, @02:43AM (#684984) Journal

    There's also plenty of positive support for the game (asset flip or not) which you can see in the comments [steamcommunity.com].

    If/when Valve censors games, people should criticize the platform for caving to pressure, even if it isn't a free speech issue (no law or court is involved, it's just about PR).

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday May 28 2018, @03:07AM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Monday May 28 2018, @03:07AM (#684987) Journal

      The tl;dr of the comments is along the lines of "But GTA lets you kill innocent civilians AND cops en mass yet where is the cry to ban it?" And I 100% agree with that.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @08:26AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @08:26AM (#685054)

      It's not a first amendment issue, but it is a free speech issue. The principle of freedom of speech is completely separate from the legal implementation of it. My opinion has almost no influence, but I strongly encourage companies to respect the principle of free speech.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @02:45AM (21 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @02:45AM (#684985)

    The developer absolutely is not entitled to be published.
    The reviewers absolutely are not entitled to be heard.
    Valve absolutely is not obligated to publish.

    You speak of rights. There are no rights here but entitlements and obligations.

    Free speech does not apply.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @03:20AM (5 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 28 2018, @03:20AM (#684990) Journal

      Free speech does not apply [in this case]

      If that's the case, then why the outcry about FB and Google/YouTube kicking out the Alt-Right content?
      Sherley, the same 'entitlements and obligations' apply in their cases too?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @03:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @03:31AM (#684992)

        I don't use Facebook or Google or YouTube, and I refuse to associate with people who do, so I guess all of those people are fucking idiots just like you.

      • (Score: 1) by sonamchauhan on Monday May 28 2018, @03:33AM

        by sonamchauhan (6546) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 28 2018, @03:33AM (#684995)

        Yes it does

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Monday May 28 2018, @02:21PM (2 children)

        by SomeGuy (5632) on Monday May 28 2018, @02:21PM (#685134)

        When Free Speech was written in to the US constitution, that consisted mostly of meeting in a public place and talking to a group of people face to face, and distributing hand printed writings. Although, even back then using a popular private meeting location or finding a publisher to print material would not have been guaranteed, but that was considered good enough.

        Today, almost every form of communication requires a private service. The entire idea of talking face to face is completely foreign to most people. It is still easier than ever to print your own material, but personal printer ownership is on the decline, and distributing printed material is increasingly problematic.

        Everything electronic requires multiple levels of services. The client hardware provider, the OS provider, the browser provider, each segment of wire or wireless, the ISP, the web host, the server hardware and OS providers, and more. In the case of software like this one, there has never been a legitimate way to install non-vendor approved software on most mobile devices, and we are slowly moving toward losing that on what were once "Personal Computers". Because it is all privately owned, in the electronic world, there is zero guarantee of Free Speech.

        Add to that that many unpopular ideas are now lumped in to Orwellian concepts such as Hatespeech.

        So yes, it is understandable that there would be outcry when modern private forums censor people. There are no reasonable, effective alternatives left.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @02:52PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 28 2018, @02:52PM (#685150) Journal

          There are no reasonable, effective alternatives left.

          Build them. E.g. 7rmath4ro2of2a42.onion

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 1) by zimmer on Tuesday May 29 2018, @03:18AM

          by zimmer (3255) on Tuesday May 29 2018, @03:18AM (#685426)

          The right to free speech just means that the government can't gag you, hence the ruling that The Donald isn't allowed to Block twitter users, but he can Mute them.

          You however can Block anyone you like, assuming you're not a representative of the government acting in your official capacity.

          The technology or ownership doesn't enter into it.

          Additionally: Hatespeech isn't an Orwellian concept, The Donald claiming he had the biggest inauguration crowd of all time despite obvious evidence to the contrary is Orwellian.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @04:44AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @04:44AM (#685010)

      So in your world freedom only works when you are interacting with the government? But not with other people?

      Valve has the right to drop kick them off the platform or let them be.
      The publisher has the right to publish the game or not.
      The people have the right to bitch about it or not.

      If you put conditions on freedom then you are not free. You are looking for a prison.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @04:55AM (2 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 28 2018, @04:55AM (#685013) Journal

        So in your world freedom only works when you are interacting with the government? But not with other people?

        "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"?
        So, if Valve - a private entity - considers that "its nose is punched" by the any game it publishes, the Valve is in its right to kick the game out.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @03:52PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @03:52PM (#685173)

          Go back and re-read my statement. Put your brain fart on this side lines and *READ*. You are putting words in my mouth.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @04:19PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 28 2018, @04:19PM (#685184) Journal

            I'm not putting anyy word in your mouth.
            Just asking "Why the definition of the liberty between two private persons - your liberty ends when it stomps over my liberty - isn't enough for you?"

            My apologies if the question overloads your intellect.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by unauthorized on Monday May 28 2018, @07:15AM (10 children)

      by unauthorized (3776) on Monday May 28 2018, @07:15AM (#685036)

      The developer absolutely is not entitled to be published.

      Sure they do. They might not be entitled to be published by any specific publisher, but if they were to find a willing partner or do so themselves, it is well within their right to have their product reach the market.

      You speak of rights. There are no rights here but entitlements and obligations.

      Free speech does not apply.

      Free speech is an ethical issue, not a legal issue. Our laws protect only a certain narrow subset of the wider issue, but they do not fully address it and indeed cannot fully address it.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @08:39AM (9 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 28 2018, @08:39AM (#685061) Journal

        Free speech is an ethical issue, not a legal issue.

        Please define "ethical" in the boundaries of capitalism.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @08:49AM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @08:49AM (#685064)

          That's entirely irrelevant. If people want more companies to act like SoylentNews and respect the principle of freedom of speech to a very high degree, they can speak up about it. The companies are not obligated to make such changes, but people can still criticize their actions. Why has this become so difficult to understand? 'I don't think X should do Y.' should not be met with 'But X has a legal right to do Y!' That is just a straw man.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @09:36AM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 28 2018, @09:36AM (#685071) Journal

            'I don't think X should do Y.' should not be met with 'But X has a legal right to do Y!'

            Except that "But X has the legal right to do so" holds true, does it not?

            Why has this become so difficult to understand?

            Because it's not a single 'I think X shouldn't do Y' opinion, there a two groups of people with two irreconcilable opinions. The 'legal right' becomes relevant when it comes to X's choice.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @09:34PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @09:34PM (#685316)

              Except that "But X has the legal right to do so" holds true, does it not?

              In the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 holds true, but bringing it up in a discussion like this would be entirely offtopic.

              The 'legal right' becomes relevant when it comes to X's choice.

              Not when people are trying to discuss the ethics of the company's actions and morons keep bringing up legal rights that were never in question to begin with.

              It's like people - even people who are ordinarily very skeptical of the free market and corporations - become unable to discuss whether what the corporation is doing is right or not in situations like these. Why not just argue against your opponent's arguments? If you think the censorship is good and they don't, then argue that.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @11:35AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @11:35AM (#685092)

            > If people want more companies to act like SoylentNews

            'nazi cesspit' and "autistic libertard manchild" are not high on most sane people's wishlist

            note the 'man' in manchild.
            Not a coincidence.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @09:57PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @09:57PM (#685322)

              But those nazis have the legal right to say those horrible things

              Strange how that 'legal right' argument isn't seen as valid anywhere else.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by unauthorized on Monday May 28 2018, @10:26AM (3 children)

          by unauthorized (3776) on Monday May 28 2018, @10:26AM (#685079)

          Ethics is completely orthogonal to economics. Communists and feudalists can have ethics just as readily as capitalists. Indeed, you don't necessarily need an economy to have an ethical framework, even in a society of truly self-sufficient people it is possible to have ethical standards. Likewise, a perfectly functional economy regardless of it's fundamental model has absolutely no need for ethics and can go just fine without them.

          What you are asking me to do is nonsensical. There is no logical basis to define ethics in terms of capitalism, at least no more than defining it in any other arbitrarily chosen ideology.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @11:23AM (2 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 28 2018, @11:23AM (#685089) Journal

            Ethics is completely orthogonal to economics.

            The philosopher-on-duty is unfortunately absorbed by the obsession with alt-right, no interests of his "Ethics - a treaty on a blog" opus

            Indeed, you don't necessarily need an economy to have an ethical framework, even in a society of truly self-sufficient people it is possible to have ethical standards.

            Let's take the "economy of scientific publications" - plagiarism (e.g. theft) happens even if the scientists should be self-sufficient.

            Likewise, a perfectly functional economy regardless of it's fundamental model has absolutely no need for ethics and can go just fine without them.

            Heh. Show me a perfect functional economy without a base on trust (and I'll show you a terrible efficiency economy. Like the one proposed by our resident "Violently Imposed Monopoly - replace it by contacts" resident). Maybe you'll... mmm... trust more Bruce Schneier on Trust [schneier.com]?

            Trust - how do you build that without ethics?

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Monday May 28 2018, @04:15PM (1 child)

              by unauthorized (3776) on Monday May 28 2018, @04:15PM (#685180)

              Let's take the "economy of scientific publications" - plagiarism (e.g. theft) happens even if the scientists should be self-sufficient.

              Hypothetically, you can take a number of people, force them to live in their own segregated areas through fancy-shmancy techno-magical brain implants which prevent any form of cooperation or willing transfer of anything economically valuable, and these people will still develop a certain set of ethical standards (eg not murdering, stealing, trespassing and so on).

              Ethics is inevitable in any complex society - the threat of violence upon transgression can only take you so far. Other primates, dolphins, whales, elephants and other species with complex societies also have them, even if theirs are cruder and closer to their biologically wired imperatives than ours, and yet only humans have such a thing as economies.

              Indeed, there are human societies today which still live as tribal hunter-gatherers and yet they too have ethical standards.

              Heh. Show me a perfect functional economy without a base on trust (and I'll show you a terrible efficiency economy.

              Slavery. It's very efficient, and there is certainly no reason for trust on either side.

              Trust - how do you build that without ethics?

              Same way your dog does - habit. We are hardwired to come to trust things as we become accustomed to them, even to our deterrent (ergo drunk driving and poor data backup hygiene).

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 28 2018, @04:38PM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 28 2018, @04:38PM (#685193) Journal

                Slavery. It's very efficient, and there is certainly no reason for trust on either side.

                Trust - perhaps if only there's a single owner and all the rest are slaves. Because otherwise the matter of trust persists between the slave owners.

                Efficiency - if it's very efficient, why did the civilized humanity got out of it?

                "Ethics is completely orthogonal to economics" is bullshit - as any grossly simplified model of reality - and you know it.
                Don't dig your heels in a futile attempt to win the debate, I'm not interested in debating any further.
                Do yourself a flavor and think a bit about before declaring that ethics and economic relations between humans are totally independent dimensions - this what orthogonal means, the projection of one onto the other is zero

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @11:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @11:19AM (#685088)
    They have the right to publish their game, but Valve is also well within their rights to refuse to let the game go out on Steam. Just as I have a right to get my ramblings published somehow, but the New York Times is also well within their rights to refuse to publish them for me. As the old saying goes: freedom of the press belongs only to those who actually own one, and one could argue that platforms like Steam and YouTube are the digital-age equivalent of a printing press.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @12:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @12:32PM (#685103)

    Let me see who's side you are:
    - the game author has the right to publish the game without any censorship pressure
    - the gamers/reviewers have the right to voice their distaste and request Valve to drop the game (their request is still free speech, is it not?)

    Both, actually.

    And as far as I know, Valve doesn't have a monopoly nor near-monopoly on game distribution, therefore of course also Valve has the right to either keep or drop the game, as they see fit. Unless they would violate a contract by doing so, of course.