Some devs voluntarily test the boundaries and get burned in the process. For good reason.

Name it "Wholesome family time"

People who object to video games in general aren't playing anything except Candy Crush or Block Blast.

So you think the problem with objectionable content is subtlety in advertising? You do know that once anyone plays the game, the cat is out of the bag right?

And whether or not we agree on "what devs ought to do", they're going to make their own decisions and mistakes. Nothing will ever be right, something else should have happened in hindsight, whatever.

This really sounds like you're selling yourself on the idea that , "if not for X we wouldn't have any problems." Well if X is the game itself, in some cases. Maybe. But if X is just details and visibility, don't kid yourself.

Plus, even if "subtlety" is employed, try to not to forget that other people aren't morons and easily fooled by this one simple trick. Lots of people are capable of recognizing subtlety and read in between the lines, plus just do some research any time their curiosity is piqued. And at some point in order to convey what the game is about the developer is going to have to expose it.

If you advertise a XXX game as less than, and normal people buy it and it's a lot more than they bargained for, it's even more game over than if you're just explicit about what the game is. One can make arguments about deceptive advertising and targeting teenagers and children if you're not clear about content.

Being cagey about game content isn't the big brain move you might think it is.

People have to right to artistic freedom. That's all you have to know.

Originally posted by nullable:

So you think the problem with objectionable content is subtlety in advertising? You do know that once anyone plays the game, the cat is out of the bag right?

And whether or not we agree on "what devs ought to do", they're going to make their own decisions and mistakes. Nothing will ever be right, something else should have happened in hindsight, whatever.

This really sounds like you're selling yourself on the idea that , "if not for X we wouldn't have any problems." Well if X is the game itself, in some cases. Maybe. But if X is just details and visibility, don't kid yourself.

Plus, even if "subtlety" is employed, try to not to forget that other people aren't morons and easily fooled by this one simple trick. Lots of people are capable of recognizing subtlety and read in between the lines, plus just do some research any time their curiosity is piqued. And at some point in order to convey what the game is about the developer is going to have to expose it.

If you advertise a XXX game as less than, and normal people buy it and it's a lot more than they bargained for, it's even more game over than if you're just explicit about what the game is. One can make arguments about deceptive advertising and targeting teenagers and children if you're not clear about content.

Being cagey about game content isn't the big brain move you might think it is.

Personally, I don't think steam should have ever been selling the adult games. That seems obvious to me.

But on this particular point, yes, I think they should be more "cagey" about the game in their description and images.

They should still warn people about the content, like how an ESRB rating warns people, but it should be a warning, not in the title or description.

Originally posted by AustrAlien2010:

People have to right to artistic freedom. That's all you have to know.

They do. And businesses have the right to refuse their art. People often seem to argue on the premise that "freedom" is only for them and everyone else ought to be subject to their freedom. Wishful thinking.

Originally posted by AustrAlien2010:

People have to right to artistic freedom. That's all you have to know.

If you believe that, then go make some child pornography and see if the police think it's okay. Hint: it's illegal to possess it.

Originally posted by Chronocide:

Personally, I don't think steam should have ever been selling the adult games. That seems obvious to me.

But on this particular point, yes, I think they should be more "cagey" about the game in their description and images.

They should still warn people about the content, like how an ESRB rating warns people, but it should be a warning, not in the title or description.

Ok, and what do you think that accomplishes exactly? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just not clear what you imagine being cagey or subtle will get you.

Will it increase sales? Appease activists? Conceal gaming's red light district from non-gamers? What?

Originally posted by Chronocide:

Originally posted by AustrAlien2010:

People have to right to artistic freedom. That's all you have to know.

If you believe that, then go make some child pornography and see if the police think it's okay. Hint: it's illegal to possess it.

We're talking about someone who draws naughty pictures on a piece of paper. That's not what you call it. You're not breaking the law by drawing a naughty cartoon on a piece of paper.

Originally posted by AustrAlien2010:

Originally posted by Chronocide:

If you believe that, then go make some child pornography and see if the police think it's okay. Hint: it's illegal to possess it.

We're talking about someone who draws naughty pictures on a piece of paper. That's not what you call it. You're not breaking the law by drawing a naughty cartoon on a piece of paper.

And who is being stopped from doing that?

Wait until our Republican boomer friends who run this country see all that.

In short, it's a miracle it went on this long. And Mr Newell better be as quiet as a churchmouse as he is, being before long Mr Trump will revoke his citizenship and keep him over in NZ.

Originally posted by AustrAlien2010:

Originally posted by Chronocide:

If you believe that, then go make some child pornography and see if the police think it's okay. Hint: it's illegal to possess it.

We're talking about someone who draws naughty pictures on a piece of paper. That's not what you call it.

I'm sorry but artistic freedom needs limits too. At least limits that makes sense.

Nobody would look at a game where the rape of a child is the goal and see it as art that is worth keeping around.

Originally posted by Thermal Lance:

Originally posted by AustrAlien2010:

We're talking about someone who draws naughty pictures on a piece of paper. That's not what you call it.

I'm sorry but artistic freedom needs limits too. At least limits that makes sense.

Nobody would look at a game where the rape of a child is the goal and see it as art that is worth keeping around.

You seem toi dont get it, such games would be agaisnt the law.
Games we are able to buy are lawfully there.

Whats happening now is a feminist group in australia tired to the government there using pressure by visa/mastercard to enforce their will.

Its nothing about the legality....

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:

Wait until our Republican boomer friends who run this country see all that.

In short, it's a miracle it went on this long. And Mr Newell better be as quiet as a churchmouse as he is, being before long Mr Trump will revoke his citizenship and keep him over in NZ.

Boomers have got 10-15 years before they’re slurring and taking up space. So they had better enjoy it.

We’re all waiting for them to die.