next »

[_Madk]

Hurrah!

[Samtagonist]

It's an inalienable right that a twelve year old should be able to buy a fifteen dollar map pack for his favorite murder simulator. 

[Gimym TILBERT]

medal of honor
six day of fallujah
Imagination Is the Only Escape
homefront

yeah free speech indeed

[SirNiko]

> publishers still continue to force developers to censor their products

> nothing changes

Is there a specific example of a game that the developers had to reign in because of publisher complaints? It seems like publishers are more likely to push download content than to dictate a rating level unless mandated by even higher authorities (eg, Australia's various content bans).

[Paul Eres]

Is there a specific example of a game that the developers had to reign in because of publisher complaints?

it's more that they don't fund ideas that they don't like

but sure, there are cases where publishers forced devs to take out stuff because it might be offensive. a notable example is the maniac mansion NES version

http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/maniac.html

[Richard Kain]

> publishers still continue to force developers to censor their products
> nothing changes

It is true that games still get censored. But the difference is that the industry itself is responsible for this censorship, not the government. In that respect, it is good that nothing has changed.

If a developer and/or publisher decides to take a risk with a controversial title, that game can still be released. Such a title can still be released right now. The market is resistant towards games like these due to fiscal concerns and public relations consequences. But the possibility for such content still exists.

Better for the game industry to be censoring itself than for that power to be placed in the questionably capable hands of politicians.

[Paul Eres]

that doesn't seem quite that true to me. there are other media of free speech that do not self-censor to the degree that games do. for instance, music and novels and even movies are allowed by publishers to be much more "offensive" in general than videogames are. you rarely see bare breasts in videogames for instance, especially AAA games, yet you see bared breasts in big-budget movies all the time

so considering that there are other media besides games which much less publisher self-censoring, and that those media aren't forced by politicians to censor themselves, it seems fair to expect that if there were less publisher self-censorship in the game industry that the politicians would do no more than they're doing right now

i think in some respects this publisher self-censorship even hurts the credibility of games; games are seen as 'for kids' because, in an attempt to self-censor, only games that are 'for kids' are allowed to be made by publishers

[Gimym TILBERT]

publisher does not have 1st amendment, money told them not

[SirNiko]

If a developer and/or publisher decides to take a risk with a controversial title, that game can still be released. Such a title can still be released right now. The market is resistant towards games like these due to fiscal concerns and public relations consequences. But the possibility for such content still exists.

As a case in point, Duke Nukem released last week on a marketing campaign that the game lets you urinate on a turd and then throw it at walls and drinking fountains. As long as 10 years ago Nintendo let BMXXX release on the Gamecube with full frontal nudity.

The puritanical days of draconian Nintendo censorship are long over.

[Zaphos]

for instance, especially AAA games, yet you see bared breasts in big-budget movies all the time

Dunno, it doesn't seem *that* rare in games, to me.

[Inane]

I don't have proof of this, but I believe that EA and other publishers refuse to release 'AO' rated games. the issue is with ESRB ratings, and how they affect sales. it's just like movies; many theaters refuse to show NC-17 rated films, so film makers are forced to dumb down their work to avoid that rating.

They don't publish AO rated games because pretty much every major retailer refuses to stock them, so it's pretty much the same as the theater situation but you're blaming the publishers for a situation caused by retailers

[Christian Knudsen]

for instance, music and novels and even movies are allowed by publishers to be much more "offensive" in general than videogames are. you rarely see bare breasts in videogames for instance, especially AAA games, yet you see bared breasts in big-budget movies all the time

And those movies are most often rated R by the MPAA, a non-government organization established by the movie industry itself, so you might call that self-censorship...

[C.A. Sinner]

The ESRB is a non-government organization as well.

[SirNiko]

They don't publish AO rated games because pretty much every major retailer refuses to stock them, so it's pretty much the same as the theater situation but you're blaming the publishers for a situation caused by retailers

Still, in Moosh's example it may have been the dev team pushed really hard that they wanted an AO game anyway because it meets their artistic vision, but they got shot down by the publisher who stated M or nothing.

Or maybe the dev team sat down with the publisher, both talked over the ramifications of each rating, and they all came to the mutual agreement that an M rated game was the best for all of them. It's hard to say without being there.

[Christian Knudsen]

The ESRB is a non-government organization as well.

Exactly. My point was that there really isn't that huge of a difference in self-censorship between games and movies (though I imagine getting an 'R' rating on a blockbuster movie has bigger financial impacts than getting an 'M' on a AAA game, so you could say there's more self-censorship with movies).