Sony Now Internally Regulates Sexual Content in Video Games

[Stefan Payne]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Silicon Valley DOES NOT RUN SONY. 

Sony is in Silicon Valley though.

 

PS: with the Red Hat I was talking about. I was thinking about a Bavaria Munich or Scuderia Ferrari one for example. There are also other possibilitys like the random 2,5€ no brand one, Addidas, Puma and co.

[Suika]

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Except the first party library didn't push it at all.  It was the lack of 3rd party support which hurt the Wii U's sales and the most bitched about thing over it on social media

Yes.

 

But I will continue insisting, the library was only part of the problem, not the sole problem. The difficulty of developing for the Wii U wasn't even the primary issue given that developers still made games for the Wii and Switch, it was the lack of consumer adoption, making ROI near impossible, that pushed third party developers away. Look at a title like Doom on the Nintendo Switch, a game that recommends a GTX 970, working on a 5-10W Maxwell GPU and crummy ARM processor. Absolute kudos to the developers for making that happen, but it's because the Switch has a large and growing install base that makes it worth doing.

 

In the end, Nintendo had an OK gimmick that just didn't appeal to consumers as well as they had hoped, and further struggled to market it. The lack of a compelling library further threw the Wii U into the hole Nintendo dug it.

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

If you were to take away games like Diablo 3, Bayonetta 2, Doom, Wolfenstein, and several other violent or NSFW games, plus the other 3rd party games from the Switch do you really think the Switch would sell as well as it does?

Yes.

 

Mario Kart 8 is the best selling software for the Nintendo Switch, with many other first party Nintendo titles after it. I don't see any of the games you listed in the top 20 sellers, but that's just what I found.

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Do you know what sells Mortal Kombat?  Gore and sex!  Why do you think people wanted the Genesis versions of the games over the SNES ones?!  Because of a lack of censorship!

Yea I never once looked at Mortal Kombat as a way of sating my sexual appetite, but hey if some people are into that, more power to them.

 

Also Nintendo sold about 20 more million consoles than Sega did, so if you're arguing what sells better, a more mature console or a console focused on being fun for everyone, then Nintendo won. The audience that wanted a particular feature bought the system and corresponding software to get it, but it's a smaller audience then you're suggesting by the sounds of it. That's one point towards... I don't know, I guess towards consoles that focus on being genuinely fun experiences rather than trying to sell sex?

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Also, believe it or not, DK did get sexualized at one point.  He has a gf that Nintendo tried to use as a sex symbol.  Her name is Candy Kong!  She's been there since the Country games and got more sexualized over time!

I... forgot that existed, and kind of wish it continued being that way. That said, she's not featured in the Nintendo Switch port of Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, so it's not a huge point to make.

5 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Donkey games also get bundled with systems, so I don't usually count their sales numbers because that puts them an unfair advantage.  That would be like arguing Sonic 2 when Sonic 2 got bundled with the Genesis after awhile.

I'm specifically arguing over sales numbers of Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze on the Nintendo Switch versus Xenoblade 2 and Bayonetta 2. DKC sold about 550 thousand units over Xenoblade and Bayonetta isn't even on the top 20 selling list for Switch titles.

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Sony is in Silicon Valley though.

Its a Japanese company! Jesus dude

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

Its a Japanese company! Jesus dude

No, its an American Company that is owned by a Japanese Company.

[Stefan Payne]

16 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Its a Japanese company! Jesus dude

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Interactive_Entertainment
 

Quote

 

Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (SIE) is a multinational video game and digital entertainment company that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation of America, the central hub for the American businesses under the Japanese conglomerate Sony Corporation.^[1] 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corporation_of_America

 

Quote

Sony Corporation of America (SCA), based in New York City,^[2] is a subsidiary of the Japanese conglomerate Sony Corporation. 

 

Its a subsidiary of a subsidiary...

The Japanese might have a say but it doesn't look like its too direct though.

And they can act independantly...

 

 

While in Theory the Japanese could come over and tell them to stop it, the question is how much power do the Japanese have over the Subsidiary of the American Subsidiary??

 

[Crossbred]

ᴼʳ ʲᵘˢᵗ ᵃᵈᵈ ᵃⁿ ᵒᵖᵗᶦᵒⁿ/ᵗʳᶦᵍᵍᵉʳ ᵗᵒ ᶜᵉⁿˢᵒʳ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ˢᵗᵘᶠᶠ ᶦⁿ ᵗʰᵉ ᵍᵃᵐᵉ ᶦᵗˢᵉˡᶠ.
⁽ᵂᵒᵘˡᵈ ᵃᶜᵗᵘᵃˡˡʸ ᵃᵖᵖʳᵉᶜᶦᵃᵗᵉ

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MoonSpot said:

A fig leaf fan I see.

The Pope hath spoken!  Michelangelo is a hack!

There’s a big difference between Michaelangelo and hentai video games.

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, floofer said:

There’s a big difference between Michaelangelo and hentai video games.

Beyond pretentious bullshitery, no, there is not.

[ARikozuM]

12 minutes ago, floofer said:

There’s a big difference between Michaelangelo and hentai video games.

All art should be treated the same. We cannot have anyone moderating art just because someone's morals get offended. Unless someone is getting physically hurt, let it be. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

All art should be treated the same. We cannot have anyone moderating art just because someone's morals get offended. Unless someone is getting physically hurt, let it be. 

It’s not art.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, floofer said:

It’s not art.

By definition, it is.

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, floofer said:

It’s not art.

Opinion. US law allows freedom of expression and that includes with art. 

[Suika]

54 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I didn't say it was the sole issue I said it was the primary issue that was causing them problems.

I still wouldn't go as far as saying it was the primary reason, because logically, the high cost of development (the first problem), low install base (another problem), and lack of a ROI (the biggest problem for developers) is what drove away third parties, ultimately hurting the Wii U's library, leading to even worse system sales. The system was facing problems before third parties pulled out and contributed further to the failure of the system.

 

I wouldn't pin something as being the single point of failure for the Nintendo Wii U, I think it was just the perfect culmination of failures on Nintendo's part that led to it.

54 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

When you sell the bundle that game's sales go up.  So, that's not really a fair comparison.

I'm on Gamestop's website to look for these bundles, and I'm not seeing much, and the bundles I am seeing cost as much as the game plus the console itself. It's not like the free copy of Wii Sports that came with every Wii, it's "Get a slightly different looking Switch if you buy extra stuff with it" kind of bundles. Like this Smash Bros bundle,

Yea, the game costs $59.99, and the system costs $299.99. You're spending an extra penny to get the special edition bundle. Or how about,

 

This is the same thing, but now it includes an extra $39.99 controller you can only really use for that game. I mean, that particular Switch is really good looking, I'd be tempted to buy it, but these bundles cost extra money, I think it's fair to say that this isn't the same pack-in-syndrome in sales figures you see in titles like Wii Sports or Mario Kart Wii because the extras in the bundle cost the standard MSRP. 

 

Occasionally, some retail stores will offer their own bundle, like Gamestop usually offers "Buy 2 used games, get 1 free" sort of stuff, but Nintendo is selling these things for full price.

54 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The number one best selling at the moment on that list is Fortnite.

I think you're looking at something else, then. I'm looking at Nintendo's actual sales numbers, as offered publicly to shareholders, not their e-shop's most downloaded lul.

54 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

SNES still had games like Doom, though.  It's when they made decisions to pull gore and other NSFW content out that people jumped to SEGA.

Unfortunately I'm just not finding enough data to argue over this, and I can only ultimately argue that Nintendo still won that generation of consoles. Here's an interesting tidbit pulled from the Wiki that I didn't even know about, though.

 

"With this new rating system in place, Nintendo decided its censorship policies were no longer needed, and the SNES port of Mortal Kombat II was released uncensored." - per 1UP

57 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

If you were to take away a lot of the gory, sexual, fighting, and other non-family friendly games do you think the PS4 or 5 is going to sell well if you can get those on the next Xbox?

There's probably a limit to what titles they can take away before consumers decide the console isn't worth it, so I can only answer that with a fat "I don't know it depends on the market and what titles the PS5 would get combined with the launch price of the unit and continued interest in home consoles with systems like the Nintendo Switch and smartphones also available." Let's not forget, people bought the original Nintendo Wii in droves because Wii Sports was included and was just really fun for everyone, all without including sexualized content... although, that'd be... really weird with Miis?

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Like, if we go fully family friendly like Nintendo originally tried with the Wii U?

Nintendo marketed the Wii U as a console for everybody (consequently, nobody knew who it was for) and never really banned objectionable content - afterall, the ESRB exists. Take a look at the Nintendo 3DS, it existed alongside the Wii U and still had mature titles.

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Seriously, let's make a console with only family values.  Let's take away all violence.  No jumping on animals.  0 Sexual content.  No gore.  We just walk around and hold hands in every game.  Family values sell better than anything!

Yea you're kind of on this trip where it sounds like your definition of fun is staring at sexually suggestive anime women bathed in the blood of their enemies, and I've got this feeling that a lot of people don't actually care for that, otherwise this would have been a much more publicly debated topic. I've personally failed to spot this topic outside of the LTT forums.

 

I said it before but I personally believe this shift in Sony's policies is only a preventative act to avoid any further government regulation or intervention. No matter how you look at it or believe it's not the fault of Sony, people are gonna blame Sony if little Jimmy over there sees some naked anime women.

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

What is stopping them from doing that? 

I'm gonna cite the Nintendo SNES vs. Sega Genesis battle. 

 

The SNES still sold more units with Nintendo's internal censorship, even though that was eventually lifted. People are going to continue buying the console with the better library or feature set, and I don't think Sony getting a bit more strict with first party content is going to change anything.

[Stefan Payne]

7 hours ago, floofer said:

It’s not art.

It is an art style.

 

And thus should not be censored.

 

Its the same shit as some flags in some Bethesda Games. Also some lines were changed. And the Germans have to endure the German Translation. There is no legal way for a German to obtain the game in the way that it was intended, with the Original Names.

[TacoSenpai]

22 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Ironic since they still have Devil's Third up on their channel.  They still have that Fatal Frame game they funded for sale still on their Japanese store.  I love how they want to pretend they're a family company.  XD

I mean don't forget they originally started as a card/toy company then a love hotel chain. 

[Stefan Payne]

6 hours ago, Suika said:

I said it before but I personally believe this shift in Sony's policies is only a preventative act to avoid any further government regulation or intervention. No matter how you look at it or believe it's not the fault of Sony, people are gonna blame Sony if little Jimmy over there sees some naked anime women.

That won't be happening.

Every western gouvernment has a special rule set that make it harder or prevent them from censoring art. The Problem we have right now is that games aren't considered Art. Movies are. 

 

And if you would look into it, you realize that Germany lifted the Ban on Nazi Imagery in Games recently. So they are getting _LESS_ censored, not more.

Also why should they care about sexual content? As long as it is mentioned and rated accordingly, nobody really cares about it.

 

No, that is NOT the reason, there won't be any gouvernment shit coming.

 

And thus we're back at where their HQ is located..

And that's between Google, Facebook to the South and Twitter to the North. Do I really need to say more about that?!

And who are "creddibly accused" of censoring certain groups and speech??

 

Do you really think that a Company 12,5 Miles North is totally different or a Company 25 Miles South?

Both in the same City area...

 

Its a decision without any benefit for the Company, on the contrary. THe "Normal Gamers" don't want no censorshit, only certain people want it.

And they are a tiny, loud minority.

And wouldn't buy the games anyway...

 

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Yup and as for the topic at hand, I find this ironic considering one of Sony's best selling exclusive franchises rides hard on what they're trying to censor.  One of GoW's main selling points is the NSFW stuff that Sony wants to censor.

IIRC it was God of War Ascention that shows you nude babes 5-10minutes into the game. Was really early on.

In some earlier games, there were even some Sex Scenes. As is the case in Witcher 3. Though not that explicit, sadly.

 

According to God of War Wiki, there are even Sex Minigames in those (though not in the last one).

[7Hertz]

I remember Steam removing a picture i took in Metro where she has her tits out..

 

but this is way beyond that, plus if parents had any common sense their children would be well looked after properly, so now because parents are shit at parenting others must suffer?

[7Hertz]

18 hours ago, floofer said:

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.

Red.

 

Responsibility is responsibility, don't forget the condoms and pills next time.

 

Black.

 

This is the most self biased thing i have read in a long time, not everything is done as some way to satisfy others, artistic expression does exist through nudity, and for a video game it could add to the story such as the Metro games, you see some tits.

 

You sound rather inexperienced if i am honest.

 

 

[Suika]

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

It was the largest complaint and reasoning why people didn't want one, the lack of NSFW and 3rd party titles.

The console had a weak launch and sales immediately plummeted afterwards. The lack of a library was not the largest complaint, it only became a complaint when people decided to not purchase the thing and third party developers left the scene.

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

https://www.imore.com/all-bundles-available-nintendo-switch = All the bundles that are still available.  When you buy one of these bundles it = more sales for the games.   That's why Mario Kart was selling so well.  It's was one of the most popular bundles. 

All of the bundles on that website are selling for more than the cost of the console + the game, you're actually further validating my point that these bundle sales should very well contribute to total software sales given that users are paying for the entire cost, and not getting a value package. 

 

I don't like considering Wii Sports as a top game because it had a serious case of pack-in-syndrome, like lets be real, it would have sold a few million copies as an individual title if the Wii retained the same install base without it. Mario Kart 8? Let's Go Pikachu? Those games still cost consumers full price, whether they bundle it or not.

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

This bundle right here.

Given that that specific bundle is no longer available for purchase anywhere at that price, I'm inclined to say it was a limited time offer through the retailer and didn't sell literal millions of units on its own. If you'd really rather, we can discuss Super Mario Odyssey's 14 million software sales (that sold bundled for an extra $80), or Super Smash Ultimate's 12 million software sales (that sold bundled for an additional $60).

 

Or we can accept that they were brilliant games that people bought to enjoy lol.

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

The Wii U's marketing didn't allow Mature content until at least 2-3 years of its life.  The Wii U came out in 2012 with the heavy marketing of family-friendly games. 

The Wii U's headlining launch title was an M rated game, and Ninja Gaiden 3 was also a launch title. 

 

Unless you can fork over specific marketing material and instructions from Nintendo to third party developers, this bit does not need any more discussion.

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

It seems like the lack of 3rd party marketing and the lack of the NSFW games is the main fault here.  Again, censorship doesn't work!

Like, I know the answer is really obvious to me, but I guess I should just repeat what I've been saying?

 

The Wii U failed for multiple reasons, and failed well before third party developers decided to abandon ship. Not to mention, the console launched with two mature titles and that didn't draw anyone in. You're literally using the corpse of a console that has nothing to do with your argument as the subject of your entire argument, and it's not holding up.

4 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

What government regulations?!  The US Government is not allowed to censor art!

No, but the can heavily restrict access and cause a massive stink for Sony.

 

The government can get Sony, and other companies, to restructure how their online store works to very who's purchasing content, or get more involved with the ESRB to issue even stricter policies, forcing more M rated games to AO which would drastically hurt Sony's software sales.

 

The government can still effectively censor content and stay within the spirit of the first amendment.

3 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

That won't be happening.

Every western gouvernment has a special rule set that make it harder or prevent them from censoring art. The Problem we have right now is that games aren't considered Art. Movies are.

Try telling that to a 35 year old women too ignorant to figure out what the little M on the corner of the box art means. I promise you she won't care what you consider video games to be. Sony recognizes that and is taking preventative measures, I mean Nintendo was effectively doing the same thing in the early '90s before Sega dragged them both in front of congress.

 

Also to repeat, 'The government can still effectively censor content and stay within the spirit of the first amendment.'

[Suika]

14 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because of the lack of games and marketing for them!

A weak library was both the result of, and contributed to the failure of the system, it was not the sole reason. It wasn't until a year after the launch of the console that EA officially pulled out, and another year afterwards before Ubisoft and 2K pulled out. System sales slowed dramatically well before third parties fled the scene, their departure only left the Wii U in more ruin, it did not create the ruin.

 

In short, the only arguments you do have suggests that the Wii U only failed after it had already failed (that doesn't make any sense, the system clearly failed well before you're suggesting it did), or that its lack of mature content didn't drive enough sales (even though the lack of mature content worked perfectly fine on the 3DS, selling 75 million units during its life of the Wii U, and the Wii U launching with mature titles). This is an argument I'm not going to continue entertaining because you are failing to provide any actual evidence to suggest why the Wii U actually failed, and are instead just using the failed console as a shield to your, quite frankly, ludicrous argument.

15 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

My point was that they exist and it upped the sales of the games.  They were going for the same as the bare console when they weren't being scalped on Amazon and eBay.

You know what? Regardless of these bundles, you're suggesting that of the 32+ million Switch units sold, a majority of the 163+ million software sales (more than half of them being first party titles) were all bundled with the consoles themselves.

 

I'm not a statistician and I can tell you those numbers don't add up in favor of your claim, even if we assumed that every one of those 32 million units were bundled (it's realistically a much smaller number). Even if you removed the Switch's 3 best selling games to account for bundles (which you couldn't, since they account for 40 million software sales of the 32 million hardware sales), Nintendo still dominates the best selling lists with Zelda, Pokemon, Splatoon, and Mario Party. You're, again, making a baseless argument that I'm not going to entertain unless you provide any form of real evidence. 

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Nintendo did not advertise Ninja Gaiden 3 at all they advertised Mario games mostly at launch strengthening my point.

No, but they certainly loved advertising ZombiU, a mature title, to display how the gamepad functions uniquely as a controller. All said in done, though, Nintendo's failure to market the console and insistence on marketing the controller instead is what hurt them the most upon launch. 

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Ninja Gaiden 3 also wasn't really exclusive to the platform it was on the 360 and PS3 and the worst modern Ninja Gaiden.

It actually doesn't matter what you think of Ninja Gaiden, you insisted that the Wii U was a safe place and could never harbor a mature title for the first few years of the system's life, and I used the title as evidence to prove your argument wrong.

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

Show me where on Nintendo's advertising YT page a 3rd party violent game in the first year.

 

ZombiU, developed by Ubisoft Montpellier and published by Ubisoft. The video speaks for itself, and was uploaded months before the launch of the console.

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

It wasn't until the Switch when they started heavily advertising violent and NSFW 3rd party games early!

You know, looking at the mature titles available on the Switch, not a single one of them are in the Switch's best selling library, so I think that while Nintendo is open to more mature content, mature content isn't what's selling the system. At the moment, I think it's just the fact that you can get Mario on a portable console.

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, they cannot restrict Sony the government is legally not allowed to!

Government takes more control over ESRB, shifts mature rated games up to AO, retailers stop carrying said games because their internal censorship policies don't really let retailers carry AO games. Bam, censorship from the government that sticks to the letter of the first amendment.

 

Another scenario, government requires that digital stores like Steam or PSN to require government forms of identification for age verification to allow purchase of mature and AO rated titles. Bam, effective censorship.

 

They can get involved if they wanted to, if Sony decides to be less careful and there's more outcry from people like Karen, whether or not it's justified, the government will decide to get involved.

[Stefan Payne]

2 hours ago, Suika said:

The Wii U failed for multiple reasons, and failed well before third party developers decided to abandon ship.

That is true.

but the most important reason is lack of games, high Price and shitty Marketing -> Normies thought its an accesory for Wii.

But it didn't start with many games. And even NOW, after the lifetime of the WiiU it doesn't have many interesting games that make sense on the WiiU...

And it wasn't powerful enough to compete with PS4/XBoner.

while costing at least 50% more at the time I thought of getting into Consoles again (2016 or 2017).

PS4 PRO was just 30€ more. 

 

Quote

You're literally using the corpse of a console that has nothing to do with your argument as the subject of your entire argument, and it's not holding up.

He's not wrong.

Nintendo's Censorshit might have to do with 3rd Partys not beeing very interested in the console in the first place, so that they didn't have much to show.

Its just one part of many. And if they port the game, show it Nintendo, Nintendo says: Nay, what's the point??

 

Also the Censorshit on Nintendo's Part was proven with my Links about Tokyo Mirage #FE, wich had a ton of censorshit  and caused me to drop the game and steal all the fun out of it. And that photographer arc was IIRC the second dungeon.

In the Original it made some sense, from what I've heard.

In the Censored Western Release it makes no sense and is totally weird. And that's why I stopped playing it....

Quote

No, but the can heavily restrict access and cause a massive stink for Sony.

They could, in theory.

BUT: Have you seen the numbers lately??

Videogames rival the Movie Industry.

And that's because everyone watches movies but not everyone plays games for various reasons. 

 

Also: Why should they care??

We ain't China where Eating a Banana is banned. We're the "free" west.

If you'd start with the censorshit in games, it won't end too well...

 

And if you looked at for example Red Dead Redemption 2, while it was only on consoles (so far), was a pretty big hit! Even though there were a ton of hit pieces against it. IIRC there was also a Hit Piece against one Sony Exclusive Game but I forgot what.

So with that in mind, think about it:
The Games Media Companies like Polygon, ROckpapershotgun and co tried to destroy Red Dead 2 with Smear Pieces and what did people do? 
They ran to the store and bought the game!!

They didn't care about that.

 

And now look what happens when they "go woke" like they did in Battlefield 5...

Yeah, THAT sold well. People were really happy about it...

NOT.

 

So you're just totally wrong here.

People do not want Political Correct/Social Justice Bullshit in their games.

They want to play Games the way THEY want.

 

And yes, it pisses me off that there is no sexy outfit in Division 1 and 2.

Quote

The government can get Sony, and other companies, to restructure how their online store works to very who's purchasing content, or get more involved with the ESRB to issue even stricter policies, forcing more M rated games to AO which would drastically hurt Sony's software sales.

The Sony Prepaid Cards are Rated 18 where I live.

https://www.amazon.de/Card-Aufstockung-Vita-Playstation-Network-Download/dp/B00GWUSE1O

 

So how can they be forced when they already officially state that you have to be 18 to use the Playstation Online Store?

 

And did you miss the Links I've posted a bit earlier??

https://www.playstation.com/en-au/get-help/help-library/my-account/parental-controls/ps4-parental-controls/

 

https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2017/10/06/how-to-use-the-new-parental-controls-and-family-accounts-features-on-ps4/

 

They already have pretty nice Parental Control things.

 

If the parents are to incompetent to set it up and can't ask someone to set it up for them, its not Sony's Fault!!!

Quote

The government can still effectively censor content and stay within the spirit of the first amendment.

No, they can't.

Read the Laws.

Read what it states.

 

 

The only exception is when a game violates the law. 

For example is too brutal (like Mortal Kombat).

In that case there can be an advertizement ban on the game. Wich is basically what the Index in Germany is.

There are two stages:
a) Must not be advertized and sold to minors. Wich means that you can't even present it on the storefront.

b) it is illegal to sell.

 

The second one rarely happens.

The first one is more common -> Advertizement ban. But that is almost as effective because you have to go to the clerk and ask him specificly if they have the game.

 

Other games are outright censored for Germany. For example Resident Evil 4.

 

Wanna know what's interesting?

5 and 6 ain't low violence. And later as well.

That proves that laws change and get more relaxed...

 

Quote

Try telling that to a 35 year old women too ignorant to figure out what the little M on the corner of the box art means. I promise you she won't care what you consider video games to be. Sony recognizes that and is taking preventative measures, I mean Nintendo was effectively doing the same thing in the early '90s before Sega dragged them both in front of congress.

Are you kidding?!

Why the heck should it be the Problem of the Gouvernment if someone is to incompetent to do their job?!
Its the parents job to read up on that shit, to look at what that means.

 

 

People should know but they don't care....

But that ain't not the Problem of the Gouvernment. That's an insane statement to claim it.

 

Quote

Also to repeat, 'The government can still effectively censor content and stay within the spirit of the first amendment.'

No, they can not.

They can only "censor" Content if it is in violation of the law.,

And sometimes the view of the people or "the law" changes.

 

For example this Story:

https://www.golem.de/1108/86095.html

 

Its in German because its for Germany.

 

The TL;DR is:

Federal Department for Media Harmful toYoung Persons has decided to remove Doom from the Index, where it was put in 1994.

That was August 31st in 2011.

And they also reevaluated the Game and gave it an age rating of just "16".

 

And last year, they even changed their mind on Nazi imagery and even allowed that for upcoming games...

[Suika]

40 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

That is true.

but the most important reason is lack of games, high Price and shitty Marketing -> Normies thought its an accesory for Wii.

But it didn't start with many games. And even NOW, after the lifetime of the WiiU it doesn't have many interesting games that make sense on the WiiU...

And it wasn't powerful enough to compete with PS4/XBoner.

while costing at least 50% more at the time I thought of getting into Consoles again (2016 or 2017).

PS4 PRO was just 30€ more. 

So yes, I'm right? Not sure what to say other than what I've been saying, the Wii U failed before third party developers decided to get out and then failed to gather any attention after the year of its launch because of its weak library and already unenticing feature set.

43 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

He's not wrong.

Nintendo's Censorshit might have to do with 3rd Partys not beeing very interested in the console in the first place, so that they didn't have much to show.

Its just one part of many. And if they port the game, show it Nintendo, Nintendo says: Nay, what's the point??

I'd definitely argue that objectively, it was more to do with lack of console sales and higher development costs over the other consoles of its time than it was Nintendo's own internal policies. Major publishers like EA, Ubisoft and 2K are more concerned with making a few bucks than they are with keeping scantily clad women in their games, so as long as there's a return on investment, they'll publish games for a given system. Problem is, there wasn't a ROI with the Wii U.

 

Keeping in mind too, I've only really seen Nintendo censor content in the US to maintain lower ESRB ratings and appeal to a wider audience. A title like Bravely Default didn't really gain much with some more revealing outfits, but making it rated M would have deterred some customers. Likewise, it's a localization issue, Japan is a lot less sensitive to specific topics and ideas than we are here in the west. I mean, gay conversion therapy was removed from the Fire Emblem games, because, say it with me, it was gay conversion therapy. That'd cause a pretty big stink if that launched here in the states. Nintendo's goal is to appeal to a wide audience, and humor like that would... bother a few people here in the west. I think a similar topic came up in Pokemon X & Y, can't recall.

54 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

They could, in theory.

BUT: Have you seen the numbers lately??

Videogames rival the Movie Industry.

And that's because everyone watches movies but not everyone plays games for various reasons. 

Movies are more widely accepted given how long they've been around as a form of content consumption, and ultimately the methods of consuming movies hasn't changed all to terribly much. Video games, however, have evolved massively since even the creation of the ESRB and is still a relatively unregulated industry. I don't think it's really a topic either of us could dig into and compare to other mediums just because of interactive video games are, and how far they've come in being incredibly realistic and immersive.

 

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

So with that in mind, think about it:
The Games Media Companies like Polygon, ROckpapershotgun and co tried to destroy Red Dead 2 with Smear Pieces and what did people do? 
They ran to the store and bought the game!!

They didn't care about that.

Yea, gaming journalism is a bit of a "yikes" topic I don't want to get into. It definitely has its problem is where I'll leave it.

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

The Sony Prepaid Cards are Rated 18 where I live.

https://www.amazon.de/Card-Aufstockung-Vita-Playstation-Network-Download/dp/B00GWUSE1O

 

So how can they be forced when they already officially state that you have to be 18 to use the Playstation Online Store?

Yea I don't think there's an age restriction here in the US, but I could be wrong though since I've only ever purchased from online stores through my credit card.

 

Also you can use a driver's license or some other from of government ID as verification. It'd be an annoying extra step but I could see it being used as an argument to prevent minors from purchasing titles they shouldn't have access to.

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

And did you miss the Links I've posted a bit earlier??

https://www.playstation.com/en-au/get-help/help-library/my-account/parental-controls/ps4-parental-controls/

 

https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2017/10/06/how-to-use-the-new-parental-controls-and-family-accounts-features-on-ps4/

 

They already have pretty nice Parental Control things.

 

If the parents are to incompetent to set it up and can't ask someone to set it up for them, its not Sony's Fault!!!

What's going to happen if a kid goes over to his friends house to play a mature game they couldn't play at home, because parents ultimately don't use the same parental controls or don't agree on the same level of controls? You get this very awkward position where either the parent using the controls has to be super controlling, which is good for nobody, or just remains ignorant to the situation. I'm not suggesting that's Sony's fault, but that's kind of the issue they have to contend with. It's their product, so obviously it's their fault (I'm trying to emphasize that this isn't my personal belief, but the belief I've heard from parents).

 

I mean, blame the parents all you want, say how it's their responsibility (it is), but at the end of the day, we obviously can't agree with the source of the Wii U's failure, how can you expect parents to agree with your exact view on how video games should be accepted in society? That's the problem.

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, they can't.

Read the Laws.

Read what it states.

 

 

The only exception is when a game violates the law. 

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

As for baseless claims, you mean like how you keep making up laws that contradict the constitution?  "The government can do this and the government can do that and Sony has to be their bitch!"

Maybe I oversimplified what I was originally insinuating for two people to have got what I meant so wrong (or maybe I didn't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯).

 

The government doesn't have to blatantly ban the sale of "bad video games" or create laws explicitly detailing the restriction of a developer's expression in a video game, but they can effectively censor a game by attempting to limit its access, much like the pornography 'ban' in the UK. To elaborate on my original example, if the government got more involved with ESRB, they could get more titles to AO status, basically banning them from retail stores, and limiting their access to wider audiences and hurting sales. This could effectively censor more mature themed video games by making it completely undesirable for publishers to release video games at a rating that doesn't sell the millions of copies that publishers want or expect.

 

So ultimately, games wouldn't be banned, they aren't literally censored, but by creating new restrictions through the ESRB, they can make specific mature themes completely undesirable to implement due to the potential impact to software sales. This is an entirely hypothetical situation, but Sony's decision to implement their own internal censorship policy's are an attempt to satisfy specific consumer complaints against specific mature themes and prevent further external regulation. At the end of the day, Sony is a company with the intent of making money (as hard as that is to believe with Sony sometimes) so if you have a problem with it, go buy an Xbox or log onto your PC.

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

Why the heck should it be the Problem of the Gouvernment if someone is to incompetent to do their job?!
Its the parents job to read up on that shit, to look at what that means.

Either you think way too highly of the average consumer or you're just expecting them to be decent, fully functioning people. Neither of those things are absolutes, so there will be consumers who complain, and if there's enough of them (or they're loud enough), government will get involved.

[Suika]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

@Suika The government is not allowed to tell Sony to remove nudity from their games that is illegal and abuse of the first amendment.

If that's your rebuttal, I don't think you quite understand what I'm arguing.

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

The government is not allowed to abuse the ESRB because they want nudity gone as well.

According to who? If the US wanted to push legislation that would replace the ESRB and have all video games go through a now federally handled review board, they could. Other countries do it.

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

The US is not as obsessed with it as the UK or other foreign government.

I'm talking about a hypothetical so it doesn't matter what the US or UK prefer.

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

AO games don't get banned from every store either. 

There's nothing wrong with a retailer selling an AO rated game, it's more so that most of ESRB's partners refuse to sell them, but no platform will license an AO rated game anyway lol.

 

"All three major console platforms have a policy of refusing to permit AO titles on their platforms. Even a PC release poses difficulties. Although the game was greenlit on Steam after being temporarily removed from the greenlight process, Valve, like Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, has a policy of not allowing sale of AO games on its platform." - Ars Technica

[Suika]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Your argument was that the government is allowed to force censorship onto Sony.

Yes, and there are ways they could that does not violate the first amendment, which I explained, but I'm not sure you're grasping yet.

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Ya, but see we have laws preventing abuse of things like the ESRB.

Such as? I don't think there's any sort of legal challenge to replacing the ESRB with a federally run equivalent, it's just that at the moment, there's no reason to since ESRB and its partners are doing fine.

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

What does matter is the constitution protecting the developers.

I'm still not sure you're comprehending the argument I'm making, because in the hypothetical I proposed, the developers are still fully within their constitutionally given rights to publish titles with whatever adult themes they see fit, the issue that comes into play is both the accessibility of those titles, and finding platforms that would willingly license such a game.

11 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Steam has Hatred, an AO game, on their store.

Hatred was on Steam before it was given the AO rating, so Valve was put in a very awkward spot with it. Weird to see it ended up on the platform.

13 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Sony and MS has had them on their consoles too.

With the exception of GTA San Andreas, do you have any examples you'd like to share to prove your argument?

[Suika]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Outside of changing a game's rating they really cannot do anything legally to force them to remove it.

Yes, and that's my argument. A government run ratings board would not exist to remove content, only to rate it. It is then upon hardware manufacturers and retails to decide if it's worth licensing and selling the AO rated content, not the rating's board. This way, a developer's/publisher's freedom of expression is not changed in any way, but there's monetary incentive to release a game with a lower rating.

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

They cannot outright ban the nudity/force it by saying,  "Remove it now or else!"  They UK and other governments can do that, but due to the first amendment the government legally can't do shit.

See above.

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

My point is that outside of a rating system the government cannot really tell them to remove the content.  You can argue all the hypothetical arguments you want, but my point is that the first amendment prohibits the government from outright banning nudity hence why the ESRB system is in place.  They are literally not allowed to tell developers to remove it.

I'm not saying the government can or should remove content, that's not my argument at all. What I am saying is that if the US government were to assume the role of a review board, and gave games harsher ratings, it'd be a form of censorship without directly conflicting with the first amendment.

 

The goal of this hypothetical federally run review board isn't to ban games, it's to rate them like the ESRB, but the federal review board would just give games harsher ratings.

8 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Hatred is not the only game that is AO on there.  There are plenty of adult anime games on there too made with RPG maker that are technically AO games.  It's just up to the developer if they want a rating in the first place they don't actually have to do it, but those are considered AO games.

Valve isn't partnered with the ESRB anyway so I guess it makes sense.

10 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Ef and a couple of Leisure Suit Larry Games, Manhunt 2, and a few others.

Yes, I'm quite aware that PC has some AO rated titles. I'm asking for examples of games that existed on Sony's or Microsoft's game consoles

41 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

In fact, they have an entire section on Amazon dedicated to AO games.

That entire section is filled with games that are given ratings from completely different review boards, not the ESRB, and one of those games is rated by the ESRB but it's just an M rated PS2 game.

 

Keep in mind, too, Amazon is a marketplace that just about anybody can sell on, and just about anybody can get information wrong or sell an import rated from a completely different rating board.