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This discussion has been archived.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: -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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Offtopic=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1