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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @08:49AM (4 children)
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)
Except that "But X has the legal right to do so" holds true, does it not?
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
In the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 holds true, but bringing it up in a discussion like this would be entirely offtopic.
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)
> 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
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.