Hatred

[TEOL]

If anyone wants to present a logical argument as to why Valve should take down Hatred but not the endless stream of shitty ripoff games they allow to be sold all the time, I'd sure like to hear it.

Because the aim of those shitty rip-off games isn't to murder people for no reason as they beg for mercy? The existence of those shitty rip-off games isn't going to give Valve bad press from the mainstream media?

So it's only the mainstream media that Valve should worry about? It's perfectly OK to let developers rip off their consumers because the mainstream media doesn't care?

Say what you want about Hatred, at least it represents itself as exactly what it is, which is more than a lot of games on Steam can say.

[apsham]

Real nice hill that some people are choosing to fight and die on here. You can make a point against Steam's business practices without straw dogging this piece of crap.

[The Lusophone]

If anyone wants to present a logical argument as to why Valve should take down Hatred but not the endless stream of shitty ripoff games they allow to be sold all the time, I'd sure like to hear it.

Because the aim of those shitty rip-off games isn't to murder people for no reason as they beg for mercy? The existence of those shitty rip-off games isn't going to give Valve bad press from the mainstream media?

So it's only the mainstream media that Valve should worry about? It's perfectly OK to let developers rip off their consumers because the mainstream media doesn't care?

Say what you want about Hatred, at least it represents itself as exactly what it is, which is more than a lot of games on Steam can say.

Yes that's exactly what I said. Valve should only be concerned about the mainstream media.

Good grief man, I refuse to believe that you can't see how allowing this murder fantasy which rewards and encourages you to commit despicable acts - under the guise of being 'rebellious' and 'counter-culture' is worse than games of questionable quality being sold on the same service.

Yes it is bad how games don't match the descriptions sometimes. And yes, developers shouldn't rip off their consumers. But making that the focus here instead of Steam allowing a murder simulator on the service is a really bizarre thing to do.

[Benji]

Real nice hill that some people are choosing to fight and die on here. You can make a point against Steam's business practices without straw dogging this piece of crap.

And you and I can argue the points rather than making passive aggressive comments about what people are entirely reasonably discussing, but here we are

[TEOL]

If anyone wants to present a logical argument as to why Valve should take down Hatred but not the endless stream of shitty ripoff games they allow to be sold all the time, I'd sure like to hear it.

Because the aim of those shitty rip-off games isn't to murder people for no reason as they beg for mercy? The existence of those shitty rip-off games isn't going to give Valve bad press from the mainstream media?

So it's only the mainstream media that Valve should worry about? It's perfectly OK to let developers rip off their consumers because the mainstream media doesn't care?

Say what you want about Hatred, at least it represents itself as exactly what it is, which is more than a lot of games on Steam can say.

Yes that's exactly what I said. Valve should only be concerned about the mainstream media.

Good grief man, I refuse to believe that you can't see how allowing this murder fantasy which rewards and encourages you to commit despicable acts - under the guise of being 'rebellious' and 'counter-culture' is worse than games of questionable quality being sold on the same service.

Yes it is bad how games don't match the descriptions sometimes. And yes, developers shouldn't rip off their consumers. But making that the focus here instead of Steam allowing a murder simulator on the service is a really bizarre thing to do.

And yes, that's exactly what I said - that allowing Hatred to be sold is 'worse'. Good one.

I don't especially want Hatred to be sold on Steam, although admittedly I don't really care as much as some people do because I think without all the fuss that people have kicked up, it would have disappeared into the ether like so many before it. All I'm saying is that Valve have no one but themselves to blame. They have had opportunity after opportunity for months now to introduce quality control into Greenlight to prevent something like this from happening, and they didn't take those opportunities because it was easier to sit back and let the money roll in. But someone like the Hatred developers was always going to come along, and had Valve taken the opportunity to reform Greenlight earlier they would have been able to deal with this situation in a simple manner that would have caused some of the fuss around it to die down rather than become louder like it has. They didn't, and now they're reaping the rewards of that strategy. If the best counter argument to that is 'yeah, but the mainstream media didn't care before!' then yeah, you're just wrong.

I haven't changed the focus. They're part of the same issue. If Steam had better quality control before now, this wouldn't have happened. The warning signs were all there and they had ample opportunity. They've no one but themselves to blame.

[Sousa]

They have had opportunity after opportunity for months now to introduce quality control into Greenlight to prevent something like this from happening, and they didn't take those opportunities because it was easier to sit back and let the money roll in. But someone like the Hatred developers was always going to come along, and had Valve taken the opportunity to reform Greenlight earlier they would have been able to deal with this situation in a simple manner that would have caused some of the fuss around it to die down rather than become louder like it has.

I don't entirely agree with this--sometimes it takes a game like this one to expose problems in a system and cause reform to happen. What Valve does now to help prevent this from happening again is going to be important.

[RPS]

Why do businesses have to be consistent in the products they list and don't list? Why do they have to provide a reason as to why the product was canned?

The only reason this is getting attention is because somebody has purposefully crafted a controversial game and Steam obviously at first said "no", but seems to have buckled on the need to have a "consistent guideline" for rejecting games. But this whole "we need an explanation from Steam! We need to know the rules!" is silly. We all know why the game was taken off. The guidelines and rules are clear. If you make something purposefully to create controversy, it is likely going to have problems getting listed at a retailer. If said game is irrelevant, years old and (arguably) tame by comparison, it probably will get listed. It is all really quite simple. It isn't hypocritical. It is a matter of one is going to garner significantly more attention and the other is probably collecting dust on Steam.

This whole "we need consistency in a retailer's reasoning, because if not the slippery slope" is silly. There is no rational or logical reason to believe that Steam is going to start rejecting listing for other games. If we all believe that Steam made the right decision (which for the most part I think we all do) and since we can reasonably ascertain the game was rejected either because it was broken and/or it was a morally reprehensible game, there is no fear of the slippery slope. We all know why Postal and Manhunt are on Steam - they are older games, they don't get the same amount of publicity, and it is very unlikely that the media or most people will even care that the game is listed. And maybe this controversy will lead to those terrible games being taken off Steam.

[TEOL]

They have had opportunity after opportunity for months now to introduce quality control into Greenlight to prevent something like this from happening, and they didn't take those opportunities because it was easier to sit back and let the money roll in. But someone like the Hatred developers was always going to come along, and had Valve taken the opportunity to reform Greenlight earlier they would have been able to deal with this situation in a simple manner that would have caused some of the fuss around it to die down rather than become louder like it has.

I don't entirely agree with this--sometimes it takes a game like this one to expose problems in a system and cause reform to happen. What Valve does now to help prevent this from happening again is going to be important.

Perhaps. I know that Steam have received plenty of complaints from people who feel cheated because they paid for something based on inaccurate or outright false information, and most of those games are still available to purchase on Steam to this day. If Steam had been properly curating Greenlight, and taking down games where it was clear people were being ripped off, they could have avoided this scenario. It could have been as simple as a takedown and a message saying 'Hatred did not meet our quality control standards', and it wouldn't have been as big a deal because that's something that regularly happens. Instead, because they hardly ever take down games, they've played right into the developer's hands and let them say 'our game is the only game so offensive that Steam tried to take it down!' and allowed them to generate far more publicity for themselves.

[Quom]

Why do businesses have to be consistent in the products they list and don't list? Why do they have to provide a reason as to why the product was canned?

The only reason this is getting attention is because somebody has purposefully crafted a controversial game and Steam obviously at first said "no", but seems to have buckled on the need to have a "consistent guideline" for rejecting games. But this whole "we need an explanation from Steam! We need to know the rules!" is silly. We all know why the game was taken off. The guidelines and rules are clear. If you make something purposefully to create controversy, it is likely going to have problems getting listed at a retailer. If said game is irrelevant, years old and (arguably) tame by comparison, it probably will get listed. It is all really quite simple. It isn't hypocritical. It is a matter of one is going to garner significantly more attention and the other is probably collecting dust on Steam.

This whole "we need consistency in a retailer's reasoning, because if not the slippery slope" is silly. There is no rational or logical reason to believe that Steam is going to start rejecting listing for other games. If we all believe that Steam made the right decision (which for the most part I think we all do) and since we can reasonably ascertain the game was rejected either because it was broken and/or it was a morally reprehensible game, there is no fear of the slippery slope. We all know why Postal and Manhunt are on Steam - they are older games, they don't get the same amount of publicity, and it is very unlikely that the media or most people will even care that the game is listed. And maybe this controversy will lead to those terrible games being taken off Steam.

I think a lot of people are annoyed because Steam is breaking consumer law in a number of countries. In Australia and most/all? of Europe things you sell need to meet certain standards, they need to be fit for purpose, the advertising can't be misleading or promise features that don't exist. If a product doesn't work the consumer is entitled to choose a refund, a replacement or a repair (from the point of sale, not the manufacturer). Steam however will 'allow' most people one refund if they kick up enough fuss. If you then buy another totally broken game stiff cheese and if you issue a totally valid chargeback there have been instances of Valve locking entire accounts (rendering you unable to play a single game you've previously purchased).

So it seems a bit rich to openly profit by breaking the law, relying on people being too poor/unwilling to take you to court then to turn around and make moral judgements on games.