Just another day in the AH...except on Steam

[cw5523729]

Don't you dare come in here and nag us!

Don't tell me to get off my high horse!

 

[crookedletter]

Guys. This is the Authors' Hangout. Horseplay is strictly forbidden.

 

[Bamagan]

Okay, yeah, equine puns do tend to get some folks bridled. Apologies.

 

[cw5523729]

Guys. This is the Authors' Hangout. Horseplay is strictly forbidden.

Oh don't be whinny about it

 

[cw5523729]

Some people will come to this thread to talk about Steam but I know that horse puns are really the mane event

 

[StillStunned]

Phew, the controverisial part of this thread has past and they're now on their marks for the bad pun section...

And we're off to the races...

The punning is the mane event of every thread.

Edit: beaten to the post!

 

[cw5523729]

The punning is the mane event of every thread.

Edit: beaten to the post!

 

[cw5523729]

Hay, we really need to keep this thread on track now

 

[cw5523729]

I feel that everyone is jockeying for the best horse pun

 

[cw5523729]

I wonder how long before the puns stall out

 

[StillStunned]

I think you've got us all whipped.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

So I’ll try and hazard an approximately intelligent response to the OP.
I can see the parallels and the concerns with censorship as articulated in the article, but as an avid gamer myself, I’ll say that Steam is a great platform as a whole. Is it a monopoly? Pretty much. Its the biggest landlord in game publishing, but its about as benevolent of a landlord as you can hope for. Specifically, it has a reputation for championing indie games.

I am sympathetic to the developers that had their game blocked by Steam. Unlike publishing on lit, video game developers put a lot of capital risk into a game, and many indie developers will put their life savings into it. Steam is so big that if Steam won’t publish your game, it could ruin you financially. The ‘Horses’ developers claimed as much in the article. But for them to claim that Steam never explained why their game was rejected is… well, sounds like a lot claims we see here lol. Disingenuous, in other words (my take, of course).

Also, there’s this:

The scene is not sexual in any way, but it is possible that the juxtaposition is what triggered the flag. We have since changed the character in the scene to be a twenty-something woman, both to avoid the juxtaposition and more importantly because the dialogue delivered in that scene, which deals with the societal structure in the world of Horses, works much better when delivered by an older character.

Bold for emphasis. So, if they had to change the character in the scene to be a twenty-something woman, then how old was she before? Not an adult is strongly implied. The closer you look at it, the more you can read between the lines. So I’m guessing there’s a lot the developer is not saying publicly about what made their game problematic for Steam.

Is it a problem that Steam is the de facto gatekeeper of artistic expression in the gaming community? Yes. sure. There’s a strong argument for that. Are monopolies bad? At the end of the day, yes, but as far as monopolies go, Steam is about the best you can hope for. Too bad for Horses.

 

[cw5523729]

Well, at least none of us are going to lose our jobs if a story doesn't get published on Lit

Are you sure about that? Because every time a story gets delayed I hear:

 

[Kelliezgirl]

So I’ll try and hazard an approximately intelligent response to the OP.
I can see the parallels and the concerns with censorship as articulated in the article, but as an avid gamer myself, I’ll say that Steam is a great platform as a whole. Is it a monopoly? Pretty much. Its the biggest landlord in game publishing, but its about as benevolent of a landlord as you can hope for. Specifically, it has a reputation for championing indie games.

I am sympathetic to the developers that had their game blocked by Steam. Unlike publishing on lit, video game developers put a lot of capital risk into a game, and many indie developers will put their life savings into it. Steam is so big that if Steam won’t publish your game, it could ruin you financially. The ‘Horses’ developers claimed as much in the article. But for them to claim that Steam never explained why their game was rejected is… well, sounds like a lot claims we see here lol. Disingenuous, in other words (my take, of course).

Also, there’s this:



Bold for emphasis. So, if they had to change the character in the scene to be a twenty-something woman, then how old was she before? Not an adult is strongly implied. The closer you look at it, the more you can read between the lines. So I’m guessing there’s a lot the developer is not saying publicly about what made their game problematic for Steam.

Is it a problem that Steam is the de facto gatekeeper of artistic expression in the gaming community? Yes. sure. There’s a strong argument for that. Are monopolies bad? At the end of the day, yes, but as far as monopolies go, Steam is about the best you can hope for. Too bad for Horses.

They admit elsewhere in the article that it was a child before it was a 20 something woman.
Also that the change made the dialogue make more sense. Which makes it sound like they had a child like body talking like an adult.

Seems a little fishy....

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

They admit elsewhere in the article that it was a child before it was a 20 something woman

Ah ok I missed that. not a good look for them.

 

[crookedletter]

It would be interesting to see if a sufficient amount of controversy could generate some sales, even if it never makes it to Steam. I have no idea what kind of readership IGN has -- I imagine it's decent, given their prominence in results any time I google something about a video game -- but this article shouldn't hurt their cause.

I have to admit I'm a little curious, if nothing else to see just how dark/disturbing the game gets.

 

[onehitwanda]

I have to admit I'm a little curious, if nothing else to see just how dark/disturbing the game gets.

It has horses. Horses are evil fuckers. It's going to be dark and disturbing.

 

[cw5523729]

It has horses. Horses are evil fuckers. It's going to be dark and disturbing.

What did the poor horse ever do to you? Look how sad he is now. I hope you're happy.

 

[crookedletter]

It has horses. Horses are evil fuckers. It's going to be dark and disturbing.

Seems like maybe it doesn't have horses. It has... naked people in horse masks made to act like horses.

... is that better?

 

[cw5523729]

Seems like maybe it doesn't have horses. It has... naked people in horse masks made to act like horses.

... is that better?

Hmm, so I'll admit that I only read the article after your comment.

The daughter wants to ride one of the horses (in the game the “horses” are humans wearing a horse mask) and gets to pick which one. What followed was an interactive dialogue sequence where the player is leading, by a lead as if they were a horse, a naked adult woman with a young girl on her shoulders. The scene is not sexual in any way

While admittedly I haven't played the game, I feel like "not sexual in any way" is a bit of a stretch. What exactly would the young girl have to do to the "horse" to qualify as "sexual in some way"?

eta: I forgot the crowd I was asking. The question was rhetorical people, rhetorical!

 

[crookedletter]

While admittedly I haven't played the game, I feel like "not sexual in any way" is a bit of a stretch. What exactly would the young girl have to do to the "horse" to qualify as "sexual in some way"?

From what I gather the imagery in the game is meant to be disturbing rather than titillating. Still, maybe ill advised to include children in such imagery.

 

[cw5523729]

From what I gather the imagery in the game is meant to be disturbing rather than titillating. Still, maybe ill advised to include children in such imagery.

I'm thinking more "claiming to be after we got our wrists slapped" vs "meant to be"

It's hard to imagine what kind of game designer legitimately didn't think it could be construed as sexual

 

[crookedletter]

I'm thinking more "claiming to be after we got our wrists slapped" vs "meant to be"

It's hard to imagine what kind of game designer legitimately didn't think it could be construed as sexual

Fair. I won't die on a hill defending a game I haven't played. Though I do sympathize with the developers, and in general I come down on the side against censorship.

 

[cw5523729]

Though I do sympathize with the developers, and in general I come down on the side against censorship.

I agree about censorship but I'm going to side with Steam for the simple reason that Steam has every right to set it's content rules on it's platform and I find it hard to believe they genuinely didn't know that they were trying to skirt them.

Steam says no pornographic content at all - in this case, it sounds like Steam cracked down not because of the pornographic material (which I think you can make a pretty strong argument for itself even if the naked horses aren't actually fucking in the game,) but the fact that they included a kid in it as well.

 

[crookedletter]

I agree about censorship but I'm going to side with Steam for the simple reason that Steam has every right to set it's content rules on it's platform and I find it hard to believe they genuinely didn't know that they were trying to skirt them.

Steam says no pornographic content at all - in this case, it sounds like Steam cracked down not because of the pornographic material (which I think you can make a pretty strong argument for itself even if the naked horses aren't actually fucking in the game,) but the fact that they included a kid in it as well.

Well, we'll never know why Steam rejected the game, because they gave no reason, even after the content in question was edited to remove the child.

Also from the article it seems Steam has recently removed some NSFW content. But I'm not sure they do say no pornographic content at all. They have a category entirely devoted to "Adults Only" -- there are full-on porn games in there. Though maybe their days are numbered.