• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Martha is dead to be censored/edited on PlayStation platforms, PC and Xbox unaffected.

Mabdia

Member
It's also moderation. censorship and moderation overlaps in this case. if you want to use to use censorship, feel free to describe it as such.

Moderation:
the quality of doing something within reasonable limits:
You can eat whatever you want as long as it's in moderation.
All parties will have to show great moderation during these very difficult negotiations.
Censorship:
the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons:
censorship of the press


Which one looks closer to you?
 

Mabdia

Member
The playstation players can just ask their father or uncle to let them play the game on xbox or PC. I am sure nobody’s going to kick up a fuss this way
Savage Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
 
I was considering buying a PlayStation 5, but seeing how they like to censor games do I think I will invest in my gaming PC instead.

I simply do not support censorship, and people who are defending this nonsense are one of the worst type of gamers if you'd ask me.
No. I know a lot of young kids will buy this shit and will be traumatized by it. Not even adults can look at it without being mind fucked. So good for Sony to remove this shit. If you want to leave it as is then rate it adults only.
 

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I was considering buying a PlayStation 5, but seeing how they like to censor games do I think I will invest in my gaming PC instead.

I simply do not support censorship, and people who are defending this nonsense are one of the worst type of gamers if you'd ask me.

Yah, Sony is positioning the Playstation for kids.
 

bender

What time is it?
davidjaffe davidjaffe made a great point on his recent video regarding this subject matter which basically called this line of thinking outdated as if big box retailers will the only means of distribution these days. This game isn't high profile enough to make it on anyone's outrage radar anyway. Get your shit together Sony.
 

yurinka

Member
What happened in this case is the publisher deciding by themselves to cut some content of the version that is going to release on retail because if not they wouldn't have get an age rating that would allow the retailers from USA to show the game in their stores.

So blame the conservative folks from USA not allowing games rated as ESRB AO to be displayed on retail stores. Or blame the publisher from wanting to release it on retail on the USA. But not the platform holder, who doesn't thave any issue with gore if properly rated and has nothing to do deciding the content included in a game they don't publish.

If they would have decided to release it on USA retail for PC and Xbox too, they would have censored these versions too.
 
Last edited:

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
What happened in this case is the publisher deciding by themselves to cut some content of the version that is going to release on retail because if not they wouldn't have get an age rating that would allow the retailers from USA to show the game in their stores.

So blame the conservative folks from USA not allowing games rated as ESRB AO to be displayed on retail stores. Or blame the publisher from wanting to release it on retail on the USA. But not the platform holder, who doesn't thave any issue with gore if properly rated and has nothing to do deciding the content included in a game they don't publish.

If they would have decided to release it on USA retail for PC and Xbox too, they would have censored these versions too.

That is utterly baseless and just a sad attempt at defending Sony who has had a long history of doing this.
 

Zeroing

Banned
What happened in this case is the publisher deciding by themselves to cut some content of the version that is going to release on retail because if not they wouldn't have get an age rating that would allow the retailers from USA to show the game in their stores.

So blame the conservative folks from USA not allowing games rated as ESRB AO to be displayed on retail stores. Or blame the publisher from wanting to release it on retail on the USA. But not the platform holder, who doesn't thave any issue with gore if properly rated and has nothing to do deciding the content included in a game they don't publish.

If they would have decided to release it on USA retail for PC and Xbox too, they would have censored these versions too.
Exactly I even linked that crazy time were the congress was against Nintendo and sega because of violent games. But nobody even cared to understand it, people are so emotional…
 

Fredrik

Gold Member
I'm gonna be too much of an edgelord if I sat that really wasn't as bad as people on here are claiming, aren't I?


Because it wasn't.
Nah. Just means you’re desensitized on gaming violence. It happens. Doesn’t mean we all are, yet. And look at the gameplay in that scene, it’s like some webbrowser game, I doubt anyone will miss it. That segment is just there to shock really, and if it doesn’t even do that, then what’s the point? The bar is just moving forward, the next game going for shock value will be worse, it’ll never stop, especially not when it can give a game this much attention. Brilliant PR campaign, I bet most had never heard about this game before the censored talk started.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
That is utterly baseless and just a sad attempt at defending Sony who has had a long history of doing this.
Bullshit, these are all facts:

One of the reasons to get ESRB AO is 'prolongued scenes of intense violence', and 'intense violence' is defined there as: "Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons and depictions of human injury and death".

This 'censored' content (at least if it follows the face stuff of the demo, or if it features sexual violence against children as in their previous game) clearly deserved ESRB AO rating. ESRB rating process or ESRB rating definitions have nothing to do with Sony. Forbidding to display ESRB AO games (for any platform, not only PS) on American retail store shelves has nothing to do with Sony, it's a regulation. And the ESRB rating process for retail games is more strict than the one for small digital only games/SKUs acquired via IARC.

Publishers frequently self censor their games to reach an age rating on retail stores of some countries. This is why the Japanese versions of games like TLOU2 or all Resident Evil games for all platforms are censored compared to their international versions. Sometimes publishers keep this self censorship only for these counttries (also happens for places like China or Germany) or for the whole world for that platform to reduce work and time. Or even apply that self censorship to all platforms.

Sony doesn't censor gore because there are tons of gore games in PS and Sony doesn't decide the content of the games they don't publish.

Plus, the retail version will be delayed to make the changes but not the PS digital version, that also will feature these changes. Last minute changes always are applied by a patch for both digital an retail versions, and the changes should already be implemented if they know that the PS digital version will be released on time. So why the delay of the physical version during an unknown 'small number of weeks'?

The only answer I found, the same other devs who I asked and they work directly in the publishing area dealing with platform holders and age ratings, is that they first got ESRB 17 via IARC sent for digital SKUs, but later when they submitted it for the ESRB rating for physical release (IARC doesn't apply here) got an ESRB AO so found that they had to self censor the platforms of the physical release on USA (in this case PlayStation versions) and resubmit it again to achieve the ESRB 17.
 
Last edited:

Reallink

Member
I was considering buying a PlayStation 5, but seeing how they like to censor games do I think I will invest in my gaming PC instead.

I simply do not support censorship, and people who are defending this nonsense are one of the worst type of gamers if you'd ask me.

But I saw a video of a texture being peeled off a polygonal mesh and there's apparently a muderous dad that puts ghost mom's fetus in the sink and I don't agree with that, so I stand with Sony! Sony knows best, I can't make decisions for myself.
 
Last edited:

Tschumi

Member
So ... We're bummed that we can't cut the face off a cadaver ..

Whatever I'd never play such schlocky salebait crap anyway
 

Honey Bunny

Member
davidjaffe davidjaffe made a great point on his recent video regarding this subject matter which basically called this line of thinking outdated as if big box retailers will the only means of distribution these days. This game isn't high profile enough to make it on anyone's outrage radar anyway. Get your shit together Sony.
That's the worst part. Sony aren't doing it to appease someone else, Sony are doing it because they are the moral puritans now.
 

SSfox

Lies about why mods reply ban and warn me.
The playstation players can just ask their father or uncle to let them play the game on xbox or PC. I am sure nobody’s going to kick up a fuss this way

In serious note, if this shit will keep going, playstation players will just buy Xbox and get all 3rd party games on it, at least you know you're getting the full complete version that was though and design by the original artists and devs behind the game.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Bullshit, you have no fucking idea. These are all facts:

One of the reasons to get ESRB AO is 'prolongued scenes of intense violence', and 'intense violence' is defined there as: "Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons and depictions of human injury and death".

This 'censored' content (at least if it follows the face stuff of the demo, or if it features sexual violence against children as in their previous game) clearly deserved ESRB AO rating. ESRB rating process or ESRB rating definitions have nothing to do with Sony. Forbidding to display ESRB AO games (for any platform, not only PS) on American retail store shelves has nothing to do with Sony, it's a regulation. And the ESRB rating process for retail games is more strict than the one for small digital only games/SKUs acquired via IARC.

Publishers frequently self censor their games to reach an age rating on retail stores of some countries. This is why the Japanese versions of games like TLOU2 or all Resident Evil games for all platforms are censored compared to their international versions. Sometimes publishers keep this self censorship only for these counttries (also happens for places like China or Germany) or for the whole world for that platform to reduce work and time. Or even apply that self censorship to all platforms.

Sony doesn't censor gore because there are tons of gore games in PS and Sony doesn't decide the content of the games they don't publish.

Plus, the retail version will be delayed to make the changes but not the PS digital version, that also will feature these changes. Last minute changes always are applied by a patch for both digital an retail versions, and the changes should already be implemented if they know that the PS digital version will be released on time. So why the delay of the physical version during an unknown 'small number of weeks'?

The only answer I found, the same other devs who I asked and they work directly in the publishing area dealing with platform holders and age ratings, is that they first got ESRB 17 via IARC sent for digital SKUs, but later when they submitted it for the ESRB rating for physical release (IARC doesn't apply here) got an ESRB AO so found that they had to self censor the platforms of the physical release on USA (in this case PlayStation versions) and resubmit it again to achieve the ESRB 17.

Once again, you are spouting baseless claims. You are projecting your own beliefs devoid of any evidence in an effort to defend Sony as you tend to do. Meanwhile Sony has had a history of forcing censorship where it is unneeded/unwarranted. Censorship that is ignored on Nintendo, PC, and Xbox where said games still get physical releases.

Literally everything points to this just being Sony acting like hypocritical cunts as they have been acting for the past six years now, since their move of the Playstation Headquarters to California.

But keep on with the word vomit that boils down to “LEAVE SONY ALOOOOOOOONE :messenger_loudly_crying:
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
This is censorship in the same way a Christian book store refusing to sell Playboy is censorship.

A gross misuse of the term.

What a disingenuous and blatant strawman argument.

A better argument would be “This is censorship in the same way that a Barnes and Noble refusing to sell Game of Thrones is censorship.”

Of course, that would literally disprove your asinine point, so I can see why you would purposefully go for one that makes literally zero sense and does not actively portray the real situation.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
What a disingenuous and blatant strawman argument.

A better argument would be “This is censorship in the same way that a Barnes and Noble refusing to sell Game of Thrones is censorship.”

Of course, that would literally disprove your asinine point, so I can see why you would purposefully go for one that makes literally zero sense and does not actively portray the real situation.
How would that disprove any point?

Barnes and Noble's refuses to sell all kinds of books. Famously refused to sell all books from a certain publisher in Seattle, WA.

It's the same point.. neither is censorship in anything but some asinine misuse of the word. It's a store choosing what it wants to sell. Playstation is literally a storefront (a digital one at least).

Also maybe look up what a straw man argument is bud.
 
Last edited:

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
How would that disprove any point?

Barnes and Noble's refuses to sell all kinds of books. Famously refused to sell all books from a certain publisher in Seattle, WA.

It's the same point.. neither is censorship in anything but some asinine misuse of the word. It's a store choosing what it wants to sell. Playstation is literally a storefront (a digital one at least).

Also maybe look up what a straw man argument is bud.

Thanks for further proving my point, bud.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Thanks for further proving my point, bud.
I don't see what point you even made beyond just using a different less drastic analogy.

I'll admit my christian book store/playboy example was hyperbole; but.. that was purposeful.. to illustrate my point.

Whether it's Sony deciding what games to license for sale, or Barnes and Nobles deciding to not work with Amazon publishing, or a Christian book store only selling Christian books.. it's the same concept. It starts breaching the "making sense" category to use censorship for "a store not selling something" when that store has a monopoly. But those also don't really exist these days; playstation certainly isn't one.

Look, I'd rather everyone just sold everything legal.. I have no qualms with anyone selling this game unedited, and don't like that Sony is forcing the devs to "censor" the game; but the term "censorship" does not mean "to censor" or "a company requiring a product be censored." It's meant for when a government doesn't allow something or some other powerful entity truly forcing something to not exist in it's intended form. Even those uses of "censor" are out of the bounds of the intent of the word; but int he context of the Playstation Sony is the "official" dictating the content.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
I don't see what point you even made beyond just using a different less drastic analogy.

I'll admit my christian book store/playboy example was hyperbole; but.. that was purposeful.. to illustrate my point.

Whether it's Sony deciding what games to license for sale, or Barnes and Nobles deciding to not work with Amazon publishing, or a Christian book store only selling Christian books.. it's the same concept. It starts breaching the "making sense" category to use censorship for "a store not selling something" when that store has a monopoly. But those also don't really exist these days; playstation certainly isn't one.

Look, I'd rather everyone just sold everything legal.. I have no qualms with anyone selling this game unedited, and don't like that Sony is forcing the devs to "censor" the game; but the term "censorship" does not mean "to censor" or "a company requiring a product be censored." It's meant for when a government doesn't allow something or some other powerful entity truly forcing something to not exist in it's intended form.

It is a good point. If this game were truly being "censored" then it would not exist as the developer intended on any platform.
 

gela94

Member
Having see the scene now... That is way out of bounds for a video game. Sony is totally in their right to not want it associated with thier store and brand.

I would be very suprised if MS does not follow up as well. Seems more like an overisight from them.
Is this real or joking, I can' t tell :messenger_unamused:
 

gela94

Member
This is censorship in the same way a Christian book store refusing to sell Playboy is censorship.

A gross misuse of the term.
This would only be a good example if the christian bookstore would still sell other nudity books or magazine . . . as you can see playstation has plenty of violent gore kind of games in their store.
 

sainraja

Member
It is a good point. If this game were truly being "censored" then it would not exist as the developer intended on any platform.
All good points....but based on Sony's action, the game could simply not exist if the dev chose to do nothing, right? Isn't the developer choosing to adjust their game so it releases on Sony's platform?
 
Last edited:

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
This would only be a good example if the christian bookstore would still sell other nudity books or magazine . . . as you can see playstation has plenty of violent gore kind of games in their store.
That really doesn't change that this isn't a good use for the term censorship; you are just nit picking my example.

Playstation not evenly applying their standards doesn't really change anything other than make them look foolish to some people.
 

Mabdia

Member
Having see the scene now... That is way out of bounds for a video game. Sony is totally in their right to not want it associated with thier store and brand.

I would be very suprised if MS does not follow up as well. Seems more like an overisight from them.
Willy Wonka Reaction GIF


What happened in this case is the publisher deciding by themselves to cut some content of the version that is going to release on retail because if not they wouldn't have get an age rating that would allow the retailers from USA to show the game in their stores.

So blame the conservative folks from USA not allowing games rated as ESRB AO to be displayed on retail stores. Or blame the publisher from wanting to release it on retail on the USA. But not the platform holder, who doesn't thave any issue with gore if properly rated and has nothing to do deciding the content included in a game they don't publish.

If they would have decided to release it on USA retail for PC and Xbox too, they would have censored these versions too.
I could believe that... only if Sony doesen't have a history of censorship.

Oh poor Sony worrying about their image regarding violence:(






Savage Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
All good points....but based on Sony's action, the game could simply not exist if the dev chose to do nothing, right? Isn't the developer choosing to adjust their game so it releases on Sony's platform?

Right. The dev could opt to not publish the game on PlayStation and keep the game exactly how it is across the board.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Once again, you are spouting baseless claims. You are projecting your own beliefs devoid of any evidence in an effort to defend Sony as you tend to do. Meanwhile Sony has had a history of forcing censorship where it is unneeded/unwarranted. Censorship that is ignored on Nintendo, PC, and Xbox where said games still get physical releases.

Literally everything points to this just being Sony acting like hypocritical cunts as they have been acting for the past six years now, since their move of the Playstation Headquarters to California.

But keep on with the word vomit that boils down to “LEAVE SONY ALOOOOOOOONE :messenger_loudly_crying:
I'm a gamedev who asked other gamedevs who work on this particular publishing area how this works and I'm explaining it to you with facts.

Like many other self 'censored' games, this game gets only censored in the platforms where it gets a retail release (in this case PlayStation only). Probably because the small publisher can't afford to release it on retail for all versions, or they consider that retail sales will be too small on other platforms to become profitable. There has been also games where the only retail version was Switch, and that version was the one 'censored'. Or was censored on the PS and Switch versions but not other ones because PS and Switch were the only ones released on retail.

Since PlayStation is the platform where 3rd parties sell the biggest amount of games (over 1700M games sold until PS5 was released), when the small publishers can only publish on retail on a single platform most frequently choose PS, and sometimes PS & Switch. So if they have to cut some content to get the proper age rating needed to publish game in retail stores on countries like USA or Japan they self censor these versions they publish on retail.

So when they only release the game on retail in a single platform typically it's PS, then PS is the only self censored platform. Sometimes the version is PS, sometimes Switch, sometimes both and sometimes Xbox too. And happens because it has nothing to do with Sony, but the age ratings are assigned by external age rating agencies and national regulations are the ones that allow or not to sell on retail stores games with certain age rating for these countries.

These regulations in many countries only affect to retail stores/physical versions so don't afect those platforms where the game is only released digitally, like always happens with the PC versions. Then there's the difference between getting ESRB rating via a IARC for small digital only games/platforms, which is faster and less strict so they typically accept as ESRB M some stuff that should be ESRB AO. But if publishers want to release it in retail they must follow a more strictly reviewed ESRB rating.

There are many games like Outlast 2 or Agony that got self censored (again, not only on PS) to get M rating instead of AO because they wanted to sell it on retail stores for console. And that happened way before Sony opened their 2nd HQ in California.

The Sony censorship is a myth.

P.S.: I suggest you to don't be that insulting and console warring because this is how you get ignored and banned.

It shouldn't be censored or a toggle option should be there for those interested in the game but not the face decapitation.
I think games with ESRB AO content should be allowed to be sold in stores for console in retail in any country, but including a more detailed list of the potential controversial/problematic content next to the ERSB description, which I also think that in digital stores should be more visible. In this case publishers wouldn't have to selfcensor their games.

But yes, an option to skip stuff like the face scene would be also nice.
 
Last edited:

Loxus

Member
I'm a gamedev who asked other gamedevs who work on this particular publishing area how this works and I'm explaining it to you with facts.

Like many other 'censored' games, this game gets only censored in the only version released on retail. Probably because the small publisher can't afford to release it on retail for all versions, or they consider that sales will be too small to become profitable. There has been also games where the only retail version was Switch, and that version was the one 'censored'.

Since PlayStation is the platform where 3rd parties sell the biggest amount of games (over 1700M games sold until PS5 was released), when the small publishers can only publish on retail on a single platform most frequently is PS, and sometimes PS & Switch. So if they have to cut some content to get the proper age rating needed to publish game in retail stores on countries like USA or Japan they self censor these versions they publish on retail.

Sometimes the version is PS, sometimes Switch, sometimes both and sometimes Xbox too. And happens because it has nothing to do with Sony, but the age ratings allowed on retail stores for these countries. The Sony censorship is a myth.

P.S.: I suggest you to don't be that insulting and console warring because this is how you get ignored and banned.
This^ post should now close this thread.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
I'm a gamedev who asked other gamedevs who work on this particular publishing area how this works and I'm explaining it to you with facts.

Like many other self 'censored' games, this game gets only censored in the platforms where it gets a retail release (in this case PlayStation only). Probably because the small publisher can't afford to release it on retail for all versions, or they consider that retail sales will be too small on other platforms to become profitable. There has been also games where the only retail version was Switch, and that version was the one 'censored'. Or was censored on the PS and Switch versions but not other ones because PS and Switch were the only ones released on retail.

Since PlayStation is the platform where 3rd parties sell the biggest amount of games (over 1700M games sold until PS5 was released), when the small publishers can only publish on retail on a single platform most frequently choose PS, and sometimes PS & Switch. So if they have to cut some content to get the proper age rating needed to publish game in retail stores on countries like USA or Japan they self censor these versions they publish on retail.

So when they only release the game on retail in a single platform typically it's PS, then PS is the only self censored platform. Sometimes the version is PS, sometimes Switch, sometimes both and sometimes Xbox too. And happens because it has nothing to do with Sony, but the age ratings are assigned by external age rating agencies and national regulations are the ones that allow or not to sell on retail stores games with certain age rating for these countries.

These regulations in many countries only affect to retail stores/physical versions so don't afect those platforms where the game is only released digitally, like always happens with the PC versions. Then there's the difference between getting ESRB rating via a IARC for small digital only games/platforms, which is faster and less strict so they typically accept as ESRB M some stuff that should be ESRB AO. But if publishers want to release it in retail they must follow a more strictly reviewed ESRB rating.

There are many games like Outlast 2 or Agony that got self censored (again, not only on PS) to get M rating instead of AO because they wanted to sell it on retail stores for console. And that happened way before Sony opened their 2nd HQ in California.

The Sony censorship is a myth.

P.S.: I suggest you to don't be that insulting and console warring because this is how you get ignored and banned.


I think games with ESRB AO content should be allowed to be sold in stores for console in retail in any country, but including a more detailed list of the potential controversial/problematic content next to the ERSB description, which I also think that in digital stores should be more visible. In this case publishers wouldn't have to selfcensor their games.

But yes, an option to skip stuff like the face scene would be also nice.

Ironic. A console warrior trying to call others console warriors when they are called out on their bullshit and word vomit defense of Sony. If you truly are a “game dev” then you are horribly ignorant of the industry at large. The creator of Senran Kagura leaving Marvelous because of Sony’s censorship demands. The entire existence of Omega Labyrinth Life on PS4 is a middle finger and has been stated as such by the devs on japanese chat forums for *years* now.

“Sony censorship is a myth” is such an asinine claim when we literally have plenty of evidence to point to. Claiming this alone shows you have no fucking clue what you are on about. Hell, even if you are lazy there is an entire thread dedicated to showcasing the hypocrisy of these actions: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/why-...ay-ot-censorship-controversy-central.1467221/

You are a joke, mate. I don‘t care if children decide to put me on ignore/blocked because they can’t handle being called out on their bullshit. If you don’t like it, do actual research before you make baseless claims and stop trying to mindlessly defend corporations.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Ironic. A console warrior trying to call others console warriors when they are called out on their bullshit and word vomit defense of Sony. If you truly are a “game dev” then you are horribly ignorant of the industry at large. The creator of Senran Kagura leaving Marvelous because of Sony’s censorship demands. The entire existence of Omega Labyrinth Life on PS4 is a middle finger and has been stated as such by the devs on japanese chat forums for *years* now.

“Sony censorship is a myth” is such an asinine claim when we literally have plenty of evidence to point to. Claiming this alone shows you have no fucking clue what you are on about. Hell, even if you are lazy there is an entire thread dedicated to showcasing the hypocrisy of these actions: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/why-...ay-ot-censorship-controversy-central.1467221/

You are a joke, mate. I don‘t care if children decide to put me on ignore/blocked because they can’t handle being called out on their bullshit. If you don’t like it, do actual research before you make baseless claims and stop trying to mindlessly defend corporations.
This is what the creator of Senran Kasuga said:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190401043744/https://gamestalk.net/post-117353/

I highly doubt he had any issue with Sony because he left to become the general manager of the Cygame's back then new console division and work on PlayStation exclusive games: also as producer of Project Awakening and in an advisory role on Granblue Fantasy Versus and Granblue Fantasy: Relink. A year or so later Cygames later signed a 3 ways deal with Kadokawa and Sony.

Btw, your life would be better if you stop insulting people who doesn't agree with you.

Goodbye.
 
Last edited:

Unk Adams

Banned
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

This absolutely is censorship just like when they decided to censor out anime titties. I'm not sure why some people try to push the lie that just because a private company decides on something doesn't make it censorship, but they're usually the same people who are against freedom of speech and expression.
 
Ever seen horror movies???
I watched a lot of horror movies back in the day. I was even already watching Braindead (Evil Alive) and Evil Dead when I was a child, but there have to be some boundaries, as a father of 2 I cannot call it art anymore to remove a child's face and even play that segment.

I grew up in Germany (now living already 13 years in Japan), so I hated censorship from the start and normally had to import American versions of games and movies. I actually still do for some games, since censorship in Japan is also big, but in this specific case I am happy that Sony took action and makes me kind of angry about Microsoft, that they just don't care...

Perhaps I am overreacting here, but I am sure if you will have children one day, you will also feel different about this kind of stuff.
 
Last edited:

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

This absolutely is censorship just like when they decided to censor out anime titties. I'm not sure why some people try to push the lie that just because a private company decides on something doesn't make it censorship, but they're usually the same people who are against freedom of speech and expression.
Sony not selling a product is not "suppression" of information.

You need to keep reading that article, and read my post I made about this.

One "store" not selling a product isn't censorship.

Read all the posts in this thread declaring they "don't support censorship of any kind" or some variation of that.

You really think they mean every single streaming network needs to host whatever content wants to be on there, that every store that sells books has to sell all books? That every art gallery has to host all art? No they pick and choose, because those individual stores/outlets/galleries/whatever aren't represented of the ability to suppress the information.

The litmus test for whether something is censorship is whether it actually suppresses the dissemination of the information/art/whatever.

If MAGWYRYTSF (mothers against games where you remove your twin sisters face) were to campaign for all console manufacturers and steam to not host this game, THAT would pass the litmus test.

Otherwise the word becomes pretty meaningless if Netflix deciding what shows it streams is considered the same "thing" as the Chinese government not allowing you to learn about Tiananmen square.

Under some vague definition, to stretch the term? Yes. An actually constructive usage of the term? Not really.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Oh poor Sony worrying about their image regarding violence:(






I see no defacing of dead people. That doesn't excuse Sony, but use better comparisons. There is a specific reason why this game was modified and it wasn't violence. It was slowly mutilating a dead person by removing their face. Why is that hard to understand?
 
Last edited:

GreenAlien

Member
One "store" not selling a product isn't censorship.
Playstation is not a store. If sony opened their platform up to other storefronts, maybe* you would have a point... If I could buy the uncensored game on some other store and still play it on my imaginary ps5 you might be right, but you can't. If you have a ps5 you are fucked. There is no other store you can buy it on. You would have to buy a different platform first.
Playstation is more like a country than a store. You would have to emigrate to get the game.

*But this argument is pretty bad either way. Just because you can get something uncensored somewhere else doesn't mean that it has not been censored at the place you can't get it at.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom