"Censorship" has always been a hot topic in the Video Game industry. It has come into the spotlight recently due to the refusal to localize Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 outside of Asia, as well as the events that lead to the firing of a public-facing Nintendo employee. I would like to share my opinion on the topic.

It is important to start with the definition of the word (actions or practices of a censor):

According to dictionary.com

"an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures,radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political,military, or other grounds."

or

"any person who supervises the manners or morality of others."

or

"an adverse critic; faultfinder.

According to merriam-webster.com

"a person who supervises conduct and morals: as

a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter

b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful"

or

"a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness"

The dictionary.com definition of "any person who supervises the manners or morality on others" is the most relevant version. The vocal minority on the internet takes issue with a person (or group of people) imposing their morals on them.

From a pure procedural view this conclusion two assumptions, that a corporation can be defined as a "person", and that a choice made by a company is an endorsement of morality. The closed nature of most large corporations gives this concept more fuel. We are rarely told the reasoning behind a company's decisions. When we are told, it is usually on the heels of a major backlash followed by a reverse in direction. The popularly negative view of large corporations causes disbelief of any information released not fitting an imagined (or possibly true) agenda.

What most people don't realize is that, with this definition "censorship" is an all too common occurrence, and is more accurately described as an aspect of culture and lies within personal opinion.

In the case of the Nintendo employee, the "witch-hunters" took issue with content of the employee's tweets and that of a thesis paper. The ideas represented in these items aligned more closely with Japanese cultural values that with some other parts of the world. (This assumes that isolated statements and writings can be considered an establishment of belief, which I disagree with). This makes the actions of these "witch-hunters" entirely hypocritical.

In general, the line of thinking is evident more prominently in far more far-reaching contexts. The presence of politically motivated laws (and rules in general) in a number of countries fits within this definition. In general we make morally related decisions on a daily basis which have impact on others. In the end, it is what we individually define as acceptable projections of morality that is the essence of censorship in a non-governmental context.

In conclusion, If one's definition of censorship includes morality, censorship is much more common than people think. Censorship in a specific concept fits better in a governmental scope, and should otherwise be grouped into the less than solid concept of morality.

The impact of censorship and the reasonable response is relevant to the impact and influence of the party in question. The Nintendo employee in question likely did not have any say in the decision that lead to this censorship (Nintendo has shown itself to be a company that makes the majority of the decisions on the Japanese side of the company and the person in question was merely a front-facing employee).

No matter what you believe about what falls into the wide definition of censorship, I believe that the minor cultural impact that some of these "censored" materials has has on any affected part makes the overall response entirely out of proportion.

Rumors that are false have a psychological impact. The conclusions drawn from the rumors persist, with a more significant impact the longer the rumor is unconfirmed. Depending on the method in which this rumor was delivered, the observer may never know that it was proven wrong. This is exasperated by the nature of the information delivery, rumors may be widely reported while updates are less entertaining and therefore are given less spotlight.

If the rumors turn out to be true, the results can be negative. The public may never know how much effort was put into transforming a project into reality. Rumors strip away the joy of viewing a project being announced in a more formal capacity. Leaked information is very likely to lack important information integral to fully understanding the product.

It has been argued that rumors can be a benefit to consumers. They allow consumers to know about products with more lead time. This gives them more time to make an informed decision about a purchase. However, the information shouldn't be used to inform decisions due to the nature of it being a rumor. Consumers are flipping a coin on the validity of the decision. The worst outcome for the consumer involves putting down permanent money on a product that isn't desired. The best outcome is the guarantee of an in-demand product.