It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionGOG's Descsion Not To Offer Hatred(193 posts)(193 posts)
(193 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 27, 2015
avatar
darkwolf777: or they have a "no AO" policy.
magog search USK18
http://www.an-ovel.com/cgi-bin/magog.cgi?ver=520&scp=gdspu&dsp=ia&ord=&flt=aan~ui~&opt=&myf=WedMay271922072015_empty_w45sTPRe6QFuv

magog search PEGI18
http://www.an-ovel.com/cgi-bin/magog.cgi?ver=520&scp=gdspu&dsp=ia&ord=&flt=aan~18~&opt=&myf=WedMay271922562015_empty__4flXB69_0jB9

magog search ESRBAO
http://www.an-ovel.com/cgi-bin/magog.cgi?ver=520&scp=gdspu&dsp=ia&ord=&flt=aan~ao~&opt=&myf=WedMay271923362015_empty_Dnw1a24JCaojx
Posted May 27, 2015
avatar
amok: Thats it, you asked for it. Telika, I Chose YOU!!!!

"Sorry but when you quote huge generalist and important-sounding philosophical statements on democracy, political censorship and dictatorship, to illustrate a point about legitimate access to porn violence, in the context of complains about a particular videogames shop not selling a particular game, then yeah, the relevancy is feeble, and the disproportion of the notions dragged in makes it pompous. Bringing "denial of access of information" (freedom of the press) in a matter of accessibility to a kill-all-my-neighbours-lolz videogame is illustrative of this rhetorical instrumentalisation of serious notions for ridiculous disputes, that irks me throughout all these threads. That is Calvin yelling about oppression when his mum drags him to the bathtub.

I cannot take seriously those who jump back and forth between "oh noes gog doesn't sell hatred" and "beware beware, remember how dictatorships always limitate access to information". No matter how cool and self-validating it sounds, it's just ridiculously out of place.

I'm pointing this out (and it concerns a huge lot of people in these threads). You're free to disagree, and if you think that hatred-on-gog is illustrative of (or in any way relevant to) the struggle to ensure the access and diversity of information within modern democracies, then carry on. The price is just some remote snickering." (http://www.gog.com/forum/general/hatred_on_gog/post366)
avatar
monkeydelarge: All I get from those words is Telika being apathetic towards what is going on and trying to justify it and condemning everyone who isn't also being apathetic to what is going on . Basically all his words could be summed up by "I don't give a shit about Hatred so you shouldn't either or something is wrong with you." Well this just means, Telika has failed to step outside of his bubble and look at the situation from from another point of view and failed to think about the long term ramifications from such a rejection from GOG deeply enough.
no, it means that if you do make these arguments - don't be surprised when people point at you and snicker.
avatar
amok: So... you are saying that if Hatred gets a good user rating it will be censorship. But for a game like Machines at War 3, which has a positive user rating, it is not censorship.... because it is not controversial enough? I still do not understand how this work...
avatar
mobutu: Yea, because Hatred gets outside of the norm, of the established boundaries. This is why some people are very vocal against it. But in the end its just a game ... or atleast this is my take on the matter ;)
[...]
Indeed, and gOg treats it exactly just like any other game they get for review. Some the let in, and some they refuse.
Post edited May 27, 2015 by amok
Posted May 27, 2015
avatar
mobutu: ...
To be fair, to me, these instances just prove that GOG has no political reason to keep such games from being released. They carry AO games, they carry games like Postal, they carry some GTA clones. What that says to me is that GOG has no history of refusing controversial games for political reasons at all. Given this tendency, it seems far more likely they have refused Hatred for technical, quality of pricing reasons.
Posted May 27, 2015
low rated
avatar
mobutu: ...
avatar
Fenixp: To be fair, to me, these instances just prove that GOG has no political reason to keep such games from being released. They carry AO games, they carry games like Postal, they carry some GTA clones. What that says to me is that GOG has no history of refusing controversial games for political reasons at all. Given this tendency, it seems far more likely they have refused Hatred for technical, quality of pricing reasons.
"Destructive went into slightly more detail in a Facebook reply regarding GOG's decision, saying that the service expressed interest in distributing the game and "even tested it, and said that the game is good, but 'we can't.' That's the whole story." Later in the same thread, Destructive says, "we really wanted to be on GOG, but shit happens."
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/05/hatred-developer-says-gog-refuses-to-distribute-the-game/
Posted May 27, 2015
avatar
Fenixp: To be fair, to me, these instances just prove that GOG has no political reason to keep such games from being released. They carry AO games, they carry games like Postal, they carry some GTA clones. What that says to me is that GOG has no history of refusing controversial games for political reasons at all. Given this tendency, it seems far more likely they have refused Hatred for technical, quality of pricing reasons.
avatar
monkeydelarge: "Destructive went into slightly more detail in a Facebook reply regarding GOG's decision, saying that the service expressed interest in distributing the game and "even tested it, and said that the game is good, but 'we can't.' That's the whole story." Later in the same thread, Destructive says, "we really wanted to be on GOG, but shit happens."
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/05/hatred-developer-says-gog-refuses-to-distribute-the-game/
And the developer doesn't have a vested interest in trying to make the game seem like something a service would want? That isn't exactly an unbiased source for information.
Posted May 27, 2015
avatar
mobutu: ...
Not sure what you're trying to show me. I realized a page or two back that GoG has at least one AO game when someone pointed out the Leisure Suit Larry one. And as Fenixp points out, this really just shows that GoG doesn't have a history of rejecting games based on content alone, or for any political correctness. So it would stand to reason they've played the game, it wasn't very good, so they've passed on selling it.
Posted May 27, 2015
high rated
Not that I'm complaining, but how is it my rep is dropping and monkey's isn't? :P
I'm down five since I told him off and falling fast.
Post edited May 27, 2015 by tinyE
Posted May 27, 2015
low rated
avatar
monkeydelarge: "Destructive went into slightly more detail in a Facebook reply regarding GOG's decision, saying that the service expressed interest in distributing the game and "even tested it, and said that the game is good, but 'we can't.' That's the whole story." Later in the same thread, Destructive says, "we really wanted to be on GOG, but shit happens."
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/05/hatred-developer-says-gog-refuses-to-distribute-the-game/
avatar
Crassmaster: And the developer doesn't have a vested interest in trying to make the game seem like something a service would want? That isn't exactly an unbiased source for information.
Yes, arstechnica is secretly owned by Destructive Creations. And Destructive Creations is secretly owned by the Reptilians. In fact, if you don't buy Hatred when it comes out, your name will be entered into a Reptilian database... And then later, everyone in that database will be forced to slave away in the mines when the Reptilian reinforcements arrive from Planet X.
Post edited May 27, 2015 by monkeydelarge
Posted May 27, 2015
avatar
Crassmaster: That isn't exactly an unbiased source for information.
That is correct but unfortunately it is the only source for information we have so far on this matter, because gog didn't comment.
This is why we have to wait a couple more days until the game launches and reviews and lets play start pouring in and then we can decide for ourself if the game is good or not.
If it's good then gog has a problem, imo.
Posted May 27, 2015
avatar
mobutu: If it's good then gog has a problem, imo.
It's been established that GOG does not only refuse games based on quality. And it has been established right here that GOG does not refuse games based on their political correctness.
Post edited May 27, 2015 by Fenixp
Posted May 27, 2015
low rated
avatar
Crassmaster: That isn't exactly an unbiased source for information.
avatar
mobutu: That is correct but unfortunately it is the only source for information we have so far on this matter, because gog didn't comment.
This is why we have to wait a couple more days until the game launches and reviews and lets play start pouring in and then we can decide for ourself if the game is good or not.
If it's good then gog has a problem, imo.
Why would a source side with a bunch of indie devs(one of them a suspected Nazi) with no power and influence and be biased against GOG? The safest and politically correct thing for arstechnica to do is be biased against Hatred. arstechnica = Steam fanboys who saw an opportunity to make GOG look bad? I don't think so. I think they are telling the truth.
Post edited May 27, 2015 by monkeydelarge
Posted May 27, 2015
avatar
Fenixp: it has been established that GOG does not refuse games based on their political correctness.
This is an extremely interesting case because hatred might be the first ;) and I have to admit I'm eager to see how the saga ends.
Posted May 27, 2015
avatar
mobutu: This is an extremely interesting case because hatred might be the first ;) and I have to admit I'm eager to see how the saga ends.
I suppose. Still, given the fact GOG never discloses reason as to why do they refuse a game, let's wait until it actually becomes a pattern before raising a fuss - slippery slope is a difficult argument to make when it only consists of one presumed case.
Posted May 27, 2015
avatar
monkeydelarge: Yes, arstechnica is secretly owned by Destructive Creations.
Don't be ridiculous. You know damn well he's referring to the quote in the article. You know, the one you pulled from the article to quote, yourself. The source of that quote is the developer of the game, ie. not exactly unbiased.
Posted May 27, 2015
avatar
mobutu: This is an extremely interesting case because hatred might be the first ;) and I have to admit I'm eager to see how the saga ends.
avatar
Fenixp: I suppose. Still, given the fact GOG never discloses reason as to why do they refuse a game, let's wait until it actually becomes a pattern before raising a fuss - slippery slope is a difficult argument to make when it only consists of one presumed case.
One thing I'm curious about is if it will have any other DRM other than steam. If it does then it likely means that Hatred was never going to be a DRM free release in the first place. Obviously GoG would rightly say no. I have heard mentions of Denuvo in various forums about Hatred.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionGOG's Descsion Not To Offer Hatred(193 posts)(193 posts)
(193 posts)