• Dead or Alive Xtreme and Senran Kagura Series Listings Removed by YouTube Gaming
    52 replies, posted
This is actually my dream, I realised when I was little that I wanted to make lewd games, but it's starting to become more and more impossible each year, although we do have some modern tools that make it easier in some fronts, but socially it's worse than before.
May want to educate yourselves a little on the matter first because Youtube's also been cracking down hard on any form of blood and gore in their platform regardless of the degree of realism. Even if the games are listed under Youtube Gaming, you can't expect to make much money out of those because the bots will notice all the entrails and x-ray shots of internal organs getting shredded and will demonetize your content. Maximilian Dood has been trying to bypass the demonetization issue by using the few characters in each MK game to not have red blood when showcasing fatalities, but this isn't enough most of the time.
I agree with you but this argument goes both ways. If a company doesn't want to publish or make something visible through their services that's entirely their choice and their right. This isn't the same thing as laws being passed to ban or restrict content, so you can't condemn x company for making same choices as y individual in their content. Like whenever this discussion comes up I always see people without fail juuuust barely treading into the idea of compulsory speech and failing to see the double standard in that.
It is not exactly the same for two reasons: Yes, as a company you are free to do whatever you want and allow the content that you want on your platform. For example, if GOG doesn't want sexual content like Steam allows now, fine. But here we are speaking about YouTube, one of the most important and most influential sites of Internet. If one day the decide that you can't upload a video of Senran Kagura, then is a big punch to the fans, the publisher and the developers and basically means that the series is dead because they can't even upload a trailer of a game. Of course this is not what is happening here, but what I am trying to say is that what big companies decides affects everyone. And second, it is a big hypocrisy that people that enjoy violent games like Mortal Kombat or DOOM are fine, but people that enjoy these kind of games are treated like potential criminals. News like these basically make the problem even worse and fans of these kind of games can't defend themselves without being treated like "pedos", "sickos", "rapists", etc. Yeah, this isn't passing a law that ban a game, but each day that passes and the potential of a real ban occurs is getting bigger (I mean, look at Sony).
I think you can criticize the logic behind a decision while also acknowledging you don't have the authority to force them to decide otherwise. Like, I honestly doubt this change has anything to do with morality anyway. Google is a company. The goal of a company is to make money. This change probably has something to do with making money. Whether that's "we don't want advertisers to associate our brand with this content" or "the data indicates that the presence of this content adversely affects user engagement" or something else entirely.
You are dead wrong, and VP of content at youtube has stated so publicly on Joe Rogan and at least two other venues. This is literally institutionalized hypocritical whataboutism.
My issue is that people have these discussion it often pretty quickly devolves into "x company is evil and wronging us/this dev" for basically making business decision that are entirely within their rights. If a company is doing something unethical/illegal like violating a contract, or cheating consumers that's a different situation. There's nothing wrong about being critical of a decision, but people are often framing these decisions as if it's great moral failing of said companies, and a terrible crime tantamount to government censorship. Understand though that I'm not criticizing anyone specifically, I just get this vibe every time I see a discussion like this, I get that you're not saying that.
Agreed, I never use a condemn during sexuality.
What about lesbians?
Let me clarify. Yes, individuals within corporations can make decisions based on morality. But corporations themselves have no incentive to care about morality. If an executive makes a decision for a moral reason, they're only permitted to under the condition that the people who have the authority to replace them(who only care about the profitability of the company) give their consent. Corporations will never give a fuck about your moral arguments against their behavior.
I am not versed in Youtube Gaming, does it have titty streamer community there? Kinda confusing if they're allowed but these games aren't.
It's not really about the profitability of the games themselves. The main reason that advertisers have a problem with sexual/violent/in any way not "family-friendly" content is that they believe that it hurts their "brand." In other words, they want people to have a clean, family-friendly image of their business and they don't want their brand being associated with anything they think might damage that image.
white supremacists and conspiracy theory morons are a valuable advertising demographic for water filter and male vitality pill manufacturers
"B-But think of the children!"
"no waifu no laifu" i believe is the term here
i've always enjoyed Dead or Alive because it's so fuckin over the top it's just a blast to play, and has a ton of hilarity in it regarding the nudity IMO
Censorship always sucks, but I never understood the hype for Dead or Alive Extreme. It's the most boring game I've ever played. Sure the girls are nice to look at, but the actual game is just not fun. You're better off playing one of the fighting games.
i would argue that some platforms, like youtube, have become big enough that the conversation should change with regards to the ethics of censorship on their platforms, and acts of censorship by these platforms necessitate greater scrutiny than smaller, less influential sites. yes, they are private entities, but they act very much so as a public space for much of the world. acts of censorship on their platforms can have even more power than acts of censorship by individual governments because it has that global reach. of course, this thread is about titty games, nothing that important, but there is still that capacity to control the flow of information that should be kept in mind.
I would argue the opposite, services policing themselves have lead to far more competition and niche services to appear. Picartio exists because twitch doesn't allow nsfw content, GoG exists because Steam enforces DRM, Full30 exists because YouTube is hostile to the gun community, all the patreon offshoots exist because patreon enforces a specific set of terms, etc.The internet marketplace means that if you can't get something from someone somewhere, someone else will provide it somewhere else. The "extra responsibility threshold" imho isn't a useful idea, one because its fuzzy and abritary, and two that it assumes powerful entities on the internet to be immortal and a mandatory, which hasn't proven to be true in the short history of the internet. On top of that it also creates new ethical problems when you embrace that mantra and find yourself unable to moderate your service making it hard to limit the negative effect your service has on the real world. Reddit is a great example of this. But.. I was more trying to get into the fact that companies shouldn't be demonized because they decide they don't want titties or violence in the products they themselves publish/bankroll. Less "YouTube trying to manipulate public opinion", and more "not rending censorship meaningless by flippantly using it to describe business/creative decisions you don't like, like what happened to the term fascism."
Beats me. Like I once heard: No one thinks about killing when there's a big ol pair of tits out
If the intention of giving every citizen the inalienable right to speak freely is to prevent the most powerful organization in our society from abusing their position of power to control public discourse and hide information they don't want people to see, what does that mean for us in the increasingly real future where megacorporations like Google have more power to control that public discourse than all of the world's governments combined?
Fucking hell, it's a blokes innards, not traffic lights.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.