I thought this topic was about Hatred so I wont make any comparisons between the two because they're different

Because developers of Hatred decided to be controversial, refusal by GOG to sell their game is automatically censorship? So because Braid decided to not be controversial, refusal by GOG to sell it is not censorship? Is there some sort of "You must be this controversial for censorship" metric?

Like I already said, braid and hatred are two entirely different things thus comparing them is wrong and only serves at derailing the topic. Not gonna go there ;)

The topic is about GOG refusing Hatred. Your claim is that GOG refusing Hatred is a form of censorship. I'm asking how is it a form of censorship and how is it different from GOG refusing any other title, Braid being an example of title generally considered good yet refused by GOG, amongst other such titles (like Thomas Was Alone). I'd say it's fairly on topic.

I think the metrics are:

If a game I want is not sold on gOg = Censorship
If a game I do not care about is not sold on gOg = Not censorship

Simpels

Truly sir, your intelligence and class are unequaled. How wrong was I to think badly of of the Hatred supporters, who show such restraint, such wisdom and politness!
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

For everyone claiming this is censorship, please read this: https://xkcd.com/1357/.

Can't you understand that maybe they don't sell it because they think it's not going to sell wll? I am interested in this game, but I still see that Breja's description of "Emo Mass Murderer Simulator" is pretty accuarate. Which is the reason most of people interested in this game are interested. We like shooting at things, we like violent games. Even if I find the character to be your typical 15 years old edgy teen and would be more interested with a more "Postal Dude" approach, I still want to try this game. But objectively, is being interesting synonym to being a good game?

Controversy aside, this game doesn't seem to have much to offer. Also, I recall reading that it even wasn't very good from a technical point of view (controls, performance and such), so even if I am interested and will most likely buy at a sale / bundle, I am surely not buying this on release, at full price, not even in a close future.

But well, let's assume I am the only weird bloke, that despite being interested in massmurdering pedestrians, won't throw money until some thime has passed at least. So, censorship.

Is this a violent game? Hell yeah. But even with all those "crude" executions and again, the 15 year old monologue of "everybody is shit and I want to die and purge those cumfaces and blablabla", the game doesn't (at least it didn't when I read about it) let you kill children, minorities, animals or whatever. Thus, even if the plot is slightly more "offensive" than Postal (or your average violent game), I don't think it is that extreme, so I personally doubt that is the reason the game isn't sold in store which already sells violent games. So I find that those claims of "GOG doesn't sell me because I am offensive :'( " are incorrect (in fact GOG knows that most of us are pretty harsh to censorship and it would be a bad decision to ban a game because of violence.

I personally think that GOG's reasoning behind this game is: yes, there are people who are interested in this game. But how many will actually buy the game within the first week or at full price? Of all those people, who will actually purchase it from us? (because if it wasn't sold on Steam, it would be a no brainer to accept, but being sold on Steam, how much money will GOG actually get). Will we have trouble with laws? (Australia and Germany are pretty thight. Will it be banned, will it require to have separate censored builds?). Will we lose money with the fair pricing package?

So yes, it is a shame we don't get this (at least for now), but before throwing "censorship" in the table, you can truly think about it and might find something besides/instead of that word.

It is just a comic, but could you clarify? I cannot see anything wrong with it.

Thanks to the controversy they were able to get direct preorders on their website without having to go through 3rd party platforms. From a business standpoint they're in a great position. It'll sell just fine. :>

There is a form of censorship in selective invisibility in the medias, for instance. This is why there are laws to ensure some amount of time of media visibility for all parties during pre-election campaigns.

I agree that this can be interpreted as censorship but I wouldn't call it that as I don't think that refusing to host something is censorship but if they are actively blocking them in expressing their views, it is censorship. But I am not a lawyer and I cannot know every law about censorship in every country.

Because the media can be heavily influenced by lobbies? Because we should not go back to dark ages and pyres for heretics? A bunch of powerful people should not be allowed to control the information in it's entirety. There are a lot of ideas that were deemed horrible and unacceptable 100 years ago, that are widely accepted now - including gay, women rights, etc. Guess what, it goes both ways.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

It's hardly invisible. It's been discussed in media A LOT. More than it's worth. But selling it would involve profiting from it. Maybe GOG just does not want that? Maybe they just want to earn money on shock value and controversy like that. Maybe they just want to stay clean of such practices. Calling that censorship or cowerdice is simply idiotic. And calling profiting from that cheap controversy and shock based marketing by selling that distastefull game "courage" is exactly the act of ennobling something ugly that I was talking about earlier.

EDIT: Oh, and please keep downvoting me all the way to the nether hells, you brave defenders of free speech :D