Sony Now Internally Regulates Sexual Content in Video Games

[MadmanRB]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

That's not really a good argument at all.  Steam is a DRM platform, and Gabe's company is the one allowing the publishing of the games you don't want on there.  Then you argue that bypassing age restriction is suddenly Gabe's problem when the real problem is shitty parenting.  You also are arguing that it's the fault of the companies publishing their games to steam, after an agreement with Valve/Gabe's company, is all their fault and hurting poor Valve like Valve had no involvement with the games being published there.  Also, you assume a billionaire is going to take your opinion to heart when his company is doing just fine.  Do you really think Gabe is going to stop what he's doing for your personal opinion about his company?

No i say the issue with steams age restricting bypass is the lack of good coding.

Any idiot could probably make a pulldown list and any idiot could simply make the date anything they wished.

I mean no solution will ever be perfect, but I do think the age restriction bypass is a little too obtuse for its own good, its so easy to bypass that it might as well not exist at all.

[Sauron]

9 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

-

You're completely missing the point - it doesn't matter how justified a parent's concerns about these games might be. Sony isn't doing it because they think it solves a real issue, they're doing it because they think it will make them more money. Parental control system or not, more mature rated games means less sales to parents who are "doing their job" as @valdyrgramr put it, which means less money for Sony. If they can get more games to fit below the "mature" rating they will probably sell more; if they can convince those who don't know or trust the parental control system, they will probably sell more - or at leas this is what they think based on their internal research.

 

And to be honest, it may actually help out some of their playerbase - I'm sure there are kids out there who aren't allowed to play certain games because of the sexual content and that they would rather play a censored version of that game than not play it at all. On the other hand, as a grown adult I think I can live without nudity in a game I otherwise enjoy... or are you saying stuff like God of War is only good because of the exposed breasts?

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

But, when Nintendo started going full family like Sony is probably trying Sony and MS pushed to the front because of the less family-focused platform.  The Wii didn't sell as well as it did because of the family shit it sold as well as it did because of the motion control crap.  The Wii U proved this.

The Wii U had a lot of problems and the lack of mature games wasn't really as important as the general lack of high profile third party games. Also, to this day a lot of people believe the Wii U was a tablet accessory for the original Wii instead of a new console due to poor marketing.

 

The original Wii sold well in great part thanks to the motion controls, but the sales numbers for titles like Mario Kart were still very high - there is a large audience for those types of games. The Switch has a few mature games, but again, they're not what's driving the sales of the console (at launch it only had a couple of first party titles and it still sold like hot cakes).

[Majinhoju]

Seems a bit silly to me but it's up to Sony how to manage their platform.  I can just play my Xbox or PC instead if I don't like it.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Except Nintendo originally was trying to sell it as a family-oriented console, and that didn't help them at all.  When they finally tried to get 3rd parties involved they weren't interested due to how much of a bitch it was to develop for.  So, there was no interest in it.  Then they started hiring people like Itagaki to make their games exclusive for it.  With MK people gave up on the SNES and started swapping to Sega because they wanted blood.

Wait, I'm kind of losing track of which console you're talking about... but either way I think this is a bit of a false comparison; censoring nudity isn't the same as straight up avoiding any remotely violent or sexually charged game. Yes, the Wii alienated a lot of old fans, but not because of the lack of nudity; it was more about the more "casual" oriented control schemes and the lack of many third party games.

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

If Sony starts to abandon good gorey games and censor the shit out of them then people won't buy games like GoW and will swap to the platform that gives them the blood, gore, and sexual content.  History has shown this.

They aren't doing that; they're simply censoring some of the most explicit nudity. The games are still going to be published and play pretty much the same unless the whole point is nudity. Either way, if they notice a negative trend in sales that could be related to this decision I'm sure they'll be very quick to revert it; they aren't suddenly changing their entire brand or marketing their console exclusively as a family friendly system. And again, every business decision such as this one is carefully weighed by market analysts - they may certainly be wrong, but they wouldn't do it if they didn't have reasons to believe it would work.

 

Again, I don't claim to know whether this is a sound marketing decision or not - I'm simply contesting the idea that Sony is deliberately going against their own best interest due to some crazy conspiracy aimed at ruining video games.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, basically what sold Sony consoles in a lot of regions is what they are trying to censor?  Cuz the sexual stuff is what sold the consoles in countries like Japan.  And, it even helps sell it in America too.  Those highly sexualized JRPGS have gotten really popular here.  Why do they think the Vita sold at all?

I don't think we can consider the vita a shining example of a successful system, regardless of what types of game sold well on it... we're kind of comparing apples to oranges here, what's true for one console that sold wildly different amounts to a presumably wildly different audience in a different time frame isn't necessarily true for another. Do you have any numbers on the amount of ps4 consoles sold mainly because of pornographic games? I would imagine they aren't nearly as many as the ones sold by more mainstream titles like the Spider-man game from last year...

 

Also, as I said, a game doesn't need full nudity to be sexualized.

[Sauron]

12 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, the number one selling game on the Vita was a JRPG with sexual content in it aka Persona 4 Golden.  The Vita was a flop, yes, but that was due to Sony not marketing it well.  But, the reason I brought it up was because the only reason it sold at all was due mostly to highly sexualized JRPGs.  The PS4 sold originally well due to MS's poor decisions at E3 here.  But, what kept selling it was the Japanese sexualized games for it.  It's the number one selling genre for it in Japan.  And, in America, it sells really well now due to the weeb culture being a norm here.  There are other games with high sexual content that sell well here too such as the Witcher games and God of War.   If that element gets censored in games like GoW and the Witcher.  Ya, a lot of people are going to cause an uproar.

Maybe so, we'll have to wait and see - it seems to me like it would more about people who want to see CGI porn than any high brow discussion on freedom of expression and artistic integrity though.

[Stefan Payne]

46 minutes ago, Sauron said:

They aren't doing that; they're simply censoring some of the most explicit nudity.

Like Gainaxing in Dead or Alive 6??

Or the Clothes in Mortal Combat??

 

Or other things, where you just don't have a nice looking/sexy outfit?

[Stefan Payne]

43 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

 Ya, a lot of people are going to cause an uproar.

Naa, most people don't do that.

They just vote with their wallets.

If there is some shit they don't like, they don't buy it. Simple as that.

For example most people don't know about that one Gilette ad because they are  not looking for it and haven't seen it. That is also an example of that campaing beeing a shot in the knee. Because I wouldn't dare buy a Gilette Razor ever agian..

 

Your example with Nintendo was also very fitting. though the WiiU had a ton of Problem, 3rd Party Support because of rules and censorshit might be one of the reasons that Nintendo lost most of the 3rd Party Support beginning with the N64. Now it looks like they can earn some of it back.

 

Also the Xbox traditionally didn't sell that well in Japan, even the 360. ANd with the XBox 360 Microsoft was able to sell as much as the PS3 - the difference between those two are negligable. So there were in a good position. But with the DRM shit, Kinect, high price because of Kinect and the always on stuff that, in my regions, caused some serious privacy conserns are just one of the many reasons that the XBoner wasn't the first choice for most people...

 

In the end, its not a good thing and it might ruin Sony, who are already struggling.

Playstation is one of the last things that keep them alive. But if they alienate the playerbase because they think that they know it best, it can only end badly, meaning with Sonys demise

 

Though they are Japanese and if they see the Problems, they might fire the persons responsible for that and openly apologize to the people and say that they were wrong and roll it back. If they do it soon enough, it might save them. 

 

But the Problem is that their main office is in the  San Francisco area....

 

Just look at how far the SIE HQ is from Twitter, Facebook, Google.  

 

Here a google Maps Link with directions from the "Googleplex" to Sony Interactive. Its just 40 Miles...

Berkeley is just Around the Corner of the SIE Building...

[DrMacintosh]

On 4/17/2019 at 10:55 AM, Stefan Payne said:

Its not Japan, its our all favorite US of A State: California.

The State of California is not in the business of telling game companies what they can and cannot sell. Even if we were, our influence wouldn’t reach across state lines. This is a corporate decision and nobody is to blame except Sony. 

[Suika]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Sony isn't doing it because they think it solves a real issue, they're doing it because they think it will make them more money.

I don't even think it's about that, I think it's a more preventative approach. Basically I think Sony is trying to avoid government intervention by being more proactive in what's launched on their platforms.

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

The Wii U proved this.

The Wii U had a numerous amount of issues that led to what we now consider it a failure for, absolutely nobody I've listened to has cited its family friendly nature as a failure. In fact, counter-point, the Nintendo 3DS is still largely considered successful and offered a similar experience to the Wii U.

 

1) Marketing was extremely vague and confusing, who was it for?
2) Is the gamepad an accessory or part of an entirely new console? Can't tell with a name like 'Wii U.'

3) Most of the original first party titles already existed on the Nintendo 3DS. If I were no name Joe and wanted to go to Best Buy to get the latest Super Smash Bros, would I spend $120 on the Nintendo 2DS and a copy of Super Smash, or $360 for what many considered the same experience on the Wii U?

4) Speaking of titles, where was the third party presence? The console was basically a roided up Wii, which was already a roided up Gamecube, development was a nightmare thanks to odd hardware design decisions by Nintendo. The only reason to buy the thing was to play the new Mario or Smash Bros... which you got on the 3DS.

5) The price of the system sitting at $299 for its entire life with bundles being the only 'sales' certainly didn't help.

6) Nintendo did not get any good publicity in this console's era. Their approach to their content on YouTube, lack of sales, leaving E3's live events in favor of their Nintendo Direct service, etc.

 

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Also, Switch sales are not even close to that of the PS4 which is the king of the consoles.

Uhh... one console is 2 years old and the other is 6 years old, I don't know if lifetime sales are a good comparative tool yet.

 

That said, the Nintendo Switch has been the fastest selling console in the US, and I'd imagine that if the Nintendo Switch Mini concept comes to fruition, we may see even greater adoption from more budget conscious markets.

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Why do they think the Vita sold at all?

 I'm sure all 5 people who bought a PS Vita have been loving Persona.

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

If that element gets censored in games like GoW and the Witcher.  Ya, a lot of people are going to cause an uproar.

I remember, I was pretty big into Bravely Default, it was a pretty neat JRPG, and soon after playing it, I heard the US version was censored ever so slightly (basically certain costumes were toned down) because Nintendo views the North American and European markets as being a bit more sensitive than the Asian markets. I saw what was censored and said, "neat."

 

I think a good portion of gamers don't care all that much. Most of what's being censored doesn't add anything to the game and if the lewd nature of these titles is what's selling them... I would assume I could go on Steam's top selling and see some visual novels. I don't.

[Suika]

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

With the Wii U the game library is primarily what caused the failure.

That's one of the contributing factors, but I wouldn't say the primary factor.

 

The Wii U had an absolutely amazing first party library that, in my opinion, made the console super worth owning. Pikmin 3, Super Smash Bros for Wii U, Super Mario Maker, Super Mario 3D World, Splatoon, etc. The problem is, 4 of the 5 games I listed also exist on the 3DS in one form or another, despite the experiences being different and way better on the Wii U, not many people saw it that way and thought they got a lot of the same great first party library on the 3DS. Nintendo's biggest competitor wasn't Sony, it was themselves with the Nintendo 3DS.

13 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, Nintendo panicked and asked for 3rd party devs.  But, the devs didn't want to develop for it due to how hard it was to develop for it.

Do you have any sources for the claim that Nintendo went to 3rd party developers? I can't seem to find anything, and the only evidence of Nintendo panicking was the pretty quick price drop of the premium model, which now included Nintendo Land, and drop of the cheaper 8GB model in the North American market.

 

Nintendo already pushed developers away with the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube with odd design constraints (expensive cartridges, mini DVDs over normal DVDs) so the Wii U shouldn't have performed as poorly as it did.

26 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The other problem was Nintendo just not marketing it well. 

Yes, a point I made.

26 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The Switch also has almost no exclusive 3rd party NSFW games which isn't really giving it the boost it needs.

The Nintendo Switch is the fastest selling console in North America and is already doing really well for its age, I have a strong suspicion that this claim is baseless.

28 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Part of what sells games like Dead or Alive, God of War, The Witcher 3, and several others is the sexual aspect.

And the Nintendo Switch is selling extraordinarily well without any of those titles, so... 

31 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Fun fact, the largest complaint on MK's FB page right now is the downplay of the sexualization of the characters.  I wish I was joking, but 9 had far more sexualized characters than the current versions.

A loud minority doesn't account for the majority on an unreleased game. Once sales data starts coming out, we can start discussing how the game actually performs versus MK9. For all we know, the less sexualized content could end up leading to more sales, we just don't have those numbers yet.

35 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Rather you like it or not...sex sells... Bayonetta, Devil's Third, Warriors Orochi 3, and other games with high sexual content in them is what pushed the Wii U.

I mean Donkey Kong Country outsold Xenoblade 2 and Bayonetta, and based off of what you're suggesting, the sexualized JRPGs should be outselling the more family friendly 2D platformer. I don't think Donkey Kong is all that sexualized, personally.

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

The State of California is not in the business of telling game companies what they can and cannot sell. Even if we were, our influence wouldn’t reach across state lines. This is a corporate decision and nobody is to blame except Sony. 

No, but the Mindset of the People there is and does.

[DrMacintosh]

32 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, but the Mindset of the People there is and does.

Do you have any evidence for that or are you just trashing my state with your feelings? 

[Chett_Manly]

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

This is honestly just delusional, if you think a massive corporation like Sony would deliberately go for a highly unprofitable maneuver just to appease imaginary "virtue signaling progressives" that somehow managed to get to the highest sphere of corporate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters_(2016_film)

 

 

Sony is now confirming to a moral system that falls exactly in line with progressive ideology. What nudity is good, what sexuality is good, what is bad, entirely lines up with progressives. Sony has put out products before that appeal that ideology, and even when they completely failed, they pushed it again. They aren't the only ones.

 

EA, Activision, Disney... 

 

The big deal here is that some of us thought Sony being Japanese would be insulated against this American political movement, but alas we were wrong. It took over the American branch and now dictates worldwide content policy.

[Stefan Payne]

13 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Do you have any evidence for that or are you just trashing my state with your feelings? 

You have my thoughts and prayers.

 

 

I don't have anything against your state in general, there seem to be some fine, rural areas.

The Problem are the Cities and the mentality in those cities.

Basically there are too many people with one mindset in one place.

We maybe could/should blame the Schools for that shit.

 

To be fair, its mostly a certain Area of San Francisco. And many Californians have to endure the policies made by/for the big cities...

And it seems to be a rather straight line north from the Google Headquaters, over Facebook, Twitter up to Sony Interactive Entertainment.

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

To be fair, its mostly a certain Area of San Francisco. And many Californians have to endure the policies made by/for the big cities...

Like what? You’re suggesting that California is a prudish state. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. There is no legislation that would persuade or force Sony into censoring their games. Why can’t you admit that this is Sony’s decision and leave California out of it? We didn’t do anything. 

[Guest]

This seems like a pretty sound decision. Game consoles are designed for children to use, I don’t think sexual content is really appropriate.

 

They could use a rating system with parental controls, but we all know you can get around those easily. 

 

Obviously it comes down to the parents to enforce what content their children watch/play, but lets get real, they aren’t watching what their kids do on the consoles or computers 24/7.

 

If you need sexual content for “Artistic expression”, then you aren’t very artistic, and should probably find another career.

[MoonSpot]

3 hours ago, floofer said:

If you need sexual content for “Artistic expression”, then you aren’t very artistic, and should probably find another career.

A fig leaf fan I see.

The Pope hath spoken!  Michelangelo is a hack!

[Stefan Payne]

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Like what?

High Taxes for example.

Or the G-Thing bullshit with the limit to 10 and other special things..

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

You’re suggesting that California is a prudish state.

No, I didn't.

I said that there is a certain area in California (for various reasons just called california), where Tech Companies are, that is censorious.

Not "just" prudish but also don't allow you to have an oppionion they don't agree with.

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

ÖHm, nope, absolutely not.

I could reference an especially short person with a weirdly spelled head accessoir that was called names that are in conflict with his beliefs.

And no, I don't like that person for various reasons.

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

There is no legislation that would persuade or force Sony into censoring their games.

You don't need a law if people want to do it because of "social pressure", because that is something the people in that area believe and want.

 

No law required for that.

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Why can’t you admit that this is Sony’s decision and leave California out of it? We didn’t do anything. 

Because its the mentality of the people in that area that causes this shit, not just a single incident.

Its the same shit as Twitter, Facebook and other Silicon Valley Tech Firms censoring people and thoughts they don't like.

SIE is in the same area. 

 

 

You could try putting a red baseballcap on your head and run around the area Sony is. And see what happens. 

But a Warning: I DO NOT RECOMMEND YOU DO THAT! IT IS DANGEROUS! You will be harassed, possibly harmed and the hat will probably be stolen. DO NOT DO THAT!

 

[DrMacintosh]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Because its the mentality of the people in that area that causes this shit, not just a single incident.

California does not run Sony. A single corporate office does not dictate the practices of a world wide corporation. THIS IS SONY's DOING on a corporate level. California has nothing to do with it. 

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

California does not run Sony. A single corporate office does not dictate the practices of a world wide corporation. THIS IS SONY's DOING. California has nothing to do with it. 

No, its the Mentality in that area that caused that.

There are a ton of Californians who don't agree with them but they usually don't live in San Francisco or Los Angeles.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, its the Mentality in that area that caused that.

What don't you understand? Sony is a world wide corporation. Sony North America makes decisions like any other mega corp, with a board, with investors, and with executives worldwide. The Sony corporate office in California did not suddenly decide that all of Sony Entertainment was going to censor content. 

 

You're weaving politics (specifically blaming California) in a corporate buisness decision. Why are you so intent on pinning it on California? 

[Stefan Payne]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Why are you so intent on pinning it on California? 

I'm specificly pinning it on the Mentality of Silicon Valley and the persons working in companies there.

Because you have to want to censor things to do that. ANd if you have enough people that want to censor in your company, you then think that its te majority of your target audience that thinks the same when it couldn't be further from the truth.

 

And the people there want to censor stuff, the reason doesn't matter. Censoring is never a good thing. And getting rid of the fun especially (Yes, some people enjoy the jiggle physics)...

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

I'm specificly pinning it on the Mentality of Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley DOES NOT RUN SONY.