@ghoti221: Thank you.

A lot of the arguements I was seeing for wanting to hold steam more accountable absolutely had the air of "We have the right to tell people what games they can make" of "What offends us should offend everyone, and if you disagree your opinion is invalid".

What you wrote on the issue however, is well spoken and has actually convinced me that my assumed position on the issue needed some adjustment. Which is either on me, for not realizing the opinions I was reading the above into didn't mean to go that far, or on me for looking in the wrong place.

Your absolutely right censorship isn't a black or white thing. And that Steam saying "No you can't sale a game here" is not the same as "We are saying you have no right to make a game". Likewise, when you put it in the context of steam being so large that, being hands off like this what they are really doing is giving a voice to the loudest and possibly a platform otherwise extremely offensive stuff wouldn't have persuades me.

I'm not sure where I'd want steam to draw a line. I'd much rather them invest time and money into segregating off the stuff some people find offensive (eroge, etc) without simply removing it all. Which left me feeling abandon by both sides. Again, perhaps my own bias showing, when it felt like I either needed to be for "no censorship" or "censoring anything/everything a certain vocal group finds offensive"

So Kudos. You've got a firm opinion, and while we might not agree on all the specifics, you helped me realize my own a bit more (and maybe confront some of my own bias at the same time).

I just keep thinking about how being a curator makes sense if you're running a physical store or a museum with limited space & resources, and how running a one-stop store is different from that situation.

When i look at how Spotify deals with discoverability on a one-stop store and it seems like they generally do the same things as Steam do. Showing you music that lines up with what you played before & highlighting certain artists through their genre-tags. The Discovery playlists are based on your data, and can probably be equated to going through your steam queues. Following other users for their playlists is similar to the steam curator program. By virtue of being a store, Steam can host themed sales. Like the 'Made in sweden' one they did recently to give some exposure to lesser known games. Similarly, Spotify can put a lesser known song in one of their global playlists. All in all, it feels like Spotify & Steam are handling being a one-stop megastore in pretty similar ways. It doesn't feel to me that there's a trick out there that improves discoveribility that they failed to include.

They probably could do a better job of highlighting the curators and giving them a bigger role in the steam discoveribility part of the store. Have weekly top 10 lists on the frontpage, let them do sales of their favorite games or something like that. Perhaps they could make a link between the games you tend to buy and those that the curators tend to buy so that those curators will pop up more frequently for you, even if you are not subscribed to them. If you see the same curator pop up quite a bit, they will probably have a similar taste to you. Or they could let every user have a curator page so that you can see the games they love. If you're not sure what game to buy, you could just look at the curator list of your friend that's always up to date on the gameworld and get a sense of which games are good. It would also be nice if there was a button that makes a game never appear on your frontpage and other personalized content again. (apart from the global top lists / sales)

That said, at some point you need to find an outside source that you trust. For instance, If i'm buying PC parts, Amazon can't give me all the information i desire. They're not specialized in that, the scope is simply too broad. On a similar note, a service like Humble Monthly / Humble Bundle is probably a better experience if you want your PC games to be curated.

I don't understand how more freedom is ever a bad thing. As long as they do what they say, and don’t allow anything illegal.

On one hand, this announcement is basically meaningless because it still just says "we'll allow whatever but if we feel like it we'll remove stuff we don't like".

On the other hand, I've heard and read a lot of responses to this from video game critics and the press and, while they often make good points about how Valve can't just pretend that selling things on their store doesn't mean or say anything about them, I'm not seeing a lot of feasible solutions being put forward either.

I don't know of a single store with high levels of traffic that has tackled this issue successfully. I often hear vague statements like "just hire an army of content moderators/curators" but I'm not sure if people who make those statements understand the sheer scope of the job at hand.

Basically, what I would like to see is recommendations on how to solve this issue without simply throwing thousands upon thousands of testers at it.

People go up in arms about games being censured and when Steam will allow more games people get upset. But maybe it is not the same people. I am glad if this means that visual novels and such content on steam will not be censored. If people are offended they don't need to buy the games. They could have better quality standards to not allow so much trash but in terms of not cencoring games I think that is a good thing. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with quality. They already have zero moderation there. I agree that there is too much trash on Steam but this announcement seems good.

The Discovery Queue has always been hit or miss for me. For one thing, I'm 100% certain that the "not interested" option doesn't actually do what it says it does. And a lot of games get on there just because they're popular, which I think is pretty silly. That said, I've definitely found games on there that I added to my wishlist because they looked interesting.

Part of the issue with Steam's past (and most recent) attempts at curation is that they apparently adhere to the ridiculous basic standard of "sex bad, violence okay" that is all too common in American culture. And AAA games with plenty of nudity and sex were never the ones targeted for removal. I guess at least now no one will have to worry about them enforcing standards unevenly.

@treetrunk: the way literally any other store does? They don't have to play through the entire game, they just need to make an active choice - not "I love this" but "this seems OK to sell, our customers won't be tricked or degraded by it". When a store finds out they're selling, say, lesser known Nazi paraphernalia or such, they usually say "we don't want to sell this, find your own store". Valve is now saying that they don't have any values whatsoever, and people seem to defend it as if Steam is the only part of the game market (where you can make a free speech argument), and not one store that will (and they still will!) make choices.

@carlthenimrod: they still have that power, though, in defining what is illegal and what is "trolling". They also have the power over what is presented to their users when they open Steam.

True, the only difference being that Steam's a store. So it's gatekeeping of a different kind. Less "your shit has no artistic value," and more "your shit is unfit for circulation," which is where the analogy starts to break down a bit. Nothing wrong with the former, and really there's nothing wrong with the latter either. If you wanna curate what you sell, and build a brand and ecosystem around that, then fuck it, that's your prerogative. Steam has apparently decided that they'd rather not engage in much gatekeeping at all, so... that's cool?

As long as I can do my own curation of the storefront (which seems to be the case, though the reliability of their tools is questionable), I'm fine with whatever being on Steam. There's a special kind of charm in browsing a place like that. A sort of wildness and honesty to it that I enjoy, maybe from an anthropological angle lol.

In any cause, I think this is actually kinda good? Maybe even admirable. Not really a "solution" to people making controversial shit, but it paves the way for that sort of drivel (both bad work and bad takes) possibly being left behind, if you're still in that stage of your life where you're hopeful about people; otherwise it's merely better than the alternatives.

I'm not into *visual novels* or that "edge-lordy" shit, so it's not like this means I can finally play what I truly want on Steam, or anything like that, but on principle I can appreciate it. In practice, I guess we'll see. I can't imagine I'd browse the Steam frontpage and faint from the sight of something anathema to my highfalutin sensibilities. Maybe if I saw a game that was like unabashedly hateful. Not generally hateful, like Hatred seemed to be, but like, yo we made a game where you kill a bunch of Muslims (barring military shooters of course (hmmmmm)). I'd be okay with that sort of stuff gone, or... let's say I wouldn't miss that kind of stuff, even if I wouldn't lobby for their removal. I guess that sort of content might qualify as "trolling," but that would be such a bizarre and diminishing way of framing it, I can't imagine they'd actually go about it that way.

But a part of me (the part that appreciates their decision) would say that it's better to leave that shit on, and then as a community collectively band together and say "fuuuuck thiiiiis shit," and have that mark remain on their game page forever. Or better yet just have it be a fuckin empty wasteland of a page where people are extremely already over it. Eventually it just fades into obscurity and people hardly remember it was ever a thing (to that end removing it would certainly help, were there only no other concerns at play). And if the opposite happens and people are way into it, then that's a whole nother thing entirely, and something worth bringing to light. That all seems more like actually dealing with it, rather than dusting it under the rug (characterized by shooing it off your platform). And I'm not talking about "the free market," I'm talking about people. I guess technically the market is comprised of people, but my position doesn't come from some sort of adoration of an ideal market; it comes from hoping for reason and resilience in humanity.

Back to Steam being open: at least that way someone that does genuinely make an artistically-inclined game that engages in shocking/distressing content (the way some art tends to) would be allowed to use the platform, and not dismissed out of turn. Otherwise it'd be risky, not only because some people are absolutely gonna be offended no matter what the dev is trying to do, but also because you'd potentially be further opening up the platform to dishonest engagers masquerading as honest ones. Now they don't have to worry about either!

Suffice to say I sure don't envy the position they're in. I guess we'll see what happens.

But besides all that, it's hilarious to me that the example they use for controlling what you see on the storefront is "how do i get rid of all these anime games?"

Sure, we can agree to disagree. But one last observation - Steam isn't separate from society. By discussing what responsibilities Steam has to society, it IS society deciding to take responsibility for itself.

I might be in the minority, but I actually do browse through storefronts to see if any games catch my eye. Browsing through steam is a nightmare because they have done almost nothing to curate the collection for the past few years. If you browse through the library from 2007 to 2012 it's a decent experience and you'll often stumble across good small games you've completely forgotten about, but since then it isn't feasible to do so. Valve certainly doesn't have to curate their storefront to sell games, but right now it isn't a place where I like to spend any more time than necessary.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I would really appreciate better filters to remove, for example, borderline-pedophiliac stuff from my version of the store but other than that I'm cool with Steam being a free market for software and games. I'd hate having hardliners of either political affiliation dictating what I can and can't see, like they do on so many other platforms.

@tothenines: People feel like the companies they interact with need to cater to them directly and don’t realize how that could harm others or how it could harm them if said others were the ones Steam ended up catering to. It often seems that people in favor of locking down things are the very people who should from experience understand why that openness should be valued, not feared. It’s the danger of allowing shitty behavior to push you to fear as you start to find mainstream acceptance rather than to embrace the new found freedom and hold onto it.

Whether it’s the LGBT community when Steam cracks down on queer sexual content or it’s the Christian community when Amazon decides to call Jesus a fictional character: pushing your morals on others beyond a basic “don’t kill and maim people” is dangerous. Freedom to express views that can be seen as dangerous or offensive is incredibly important despite the (sometimes, to some people) unpleasant side effects is incredibly important and without people pushing against such limitations a lot of incredibly important civil rights movements would have been dead in the water.

It’s especially frustrating when the majority of serious opposing arguments mention “the alt right” when those folks aren’t the ones impacted by Steam’s decisions generally. The even conservatives aren’t the ones making horny anime games or horny queer games.

Steams stance that they don’t have a right to dictate nuanced moral issues on their audience/market is good. Freedom is good. It is far more valuable than perceived safety for a select group. It’s just sad when that group used to be the ones who had to fight for that freedom.

Steam has now blacklisted any LGBT related tag, and done so right at the start of E3, where there's unlikely to be any room for reporting on it. Happy Pride!

Evidence:
https://twitter.com/Mjolna/status/1004904907059683328
https://twitter.com/jbu3/status/1005413879906791424

It's almost like Valve is trying to be as shitty as possible.

I have some major problems of this whole topic of wanting or objecting that Steam curate with moral or ethical constraints, the present high influx of video games. For one thing, I am what one may call an old style liberal. More attached to Lenny Bruce than the voters of San Francisco concerning the flavored vaping controversy. (Gawd…) These days some more intellectually oriented conservatives have wondered what went wrong with the culture war, and have correctly observed that todays liberals are more restrictive, almost a complete flop from say the 1950's through 1980's. There was an interesting article in The Federalist a few years ago by a right leaning video game reviewer/critique, that examined the loss of the so called culture war, and what could be done to re-gain it. Essentially he put forth a more libertarian approach (amazing to my ears!) and that video games ought to be embraced.

So I am a bit stymied. On practical terms, Steam washing it's hands and deciding to 'let it all hang out' probably won't end well. There are so-called restrictions of law, but that is just some Entity's filter that plays to it's own survival, and the whims and biases of those in power stated as rule of law. There is of course free speech and more art-full ways to work around the edges.

Also there is the practical problem of someone(s) actually having to actually play all that stuff to curate it. And because everyone in general loves fast and easy solutions, as video games for whatever reason are linked to social crime (rapes, mass killings), then entities such as Steam will feel the heat, no matter how they try to dance away from the flame.

So I am in a predicament. There are established rating systems, but you need someone actually applying them. Which is a lot of work. (Or seems to be?) Or we just let the present situation play out to it's conclusion. But I am not sure yet how I feel, except I do know this. Despite my libertarian stance, I often see the world in a more socialist kind of way. I want the greatest good for the greatest number. So that adopting a policy that may in effect bring grief because of irresponsibility to contain extremes of racist and misogynist behavior, just may not be the way to go.

Just don't let San Francisco handle the ball.

@panfoot: @karrius:

https://twitter.com/mcclure111/status/1005517316447244288?s=19

https://twitter.com/Mjolna/status/1005511281573588992?s=19

This isn't new, apparently.

I've never had an issue browsing the Steam store, i wish i could move new releases up so i don't have to scroll down to it every time but it's only a short scroll away.
Games with sexual content are fun to see, i'm an adult so it doesn't really bother me, if i had kids i'd probably use the parental controls.

I approve of Valve's approach, they'll continue to remove problem games and developers as they have been... it's all good.

Great news. Though... I don't think anything I'm interested in would be at risk of censorship or being taken down for other reasons.

I'm not seeing why people are bent out of shape about this. I see some websites/writers are throwing tantrums and playing into a stereotype.

This doesn't actually seem different to the way it has been. They're just clarifying that they aren't going to give in to overzealous pressure (Hatred anyone?).

Hatred sold quite well because websites wouldn't shut up about how distasteful it apparently is and that it should be removed. They helped a poor game do a lot better than it would have if it was ignored. Good job...

Steam is fine for finding new games to play and they already have curators and some editor's choice type stuff.

I give this a week... no 6 days before someone puts something so offensive up for sale that they have to revise this dumb move immediately. Seriously there is a game for sale on steam right now called aids simulator that I’m shocked hasn’t caused more controversy it’s probably because there is so much literal garbage on the store front that it just passed by without so much as a glance.

God this is a dumb move just hire like 20 people pay them minimum wage and have they play every game for 5 minutes problem solved.

@haruko: No there isn't, AIDS Simulator was removed along with that studios other troll games days ago.

@therealseaman: the fact that it was allowed on the store at all is the problem valve stepping in after the situation has already gone to pot means they don’t care about either their image/reputation or the image/reputation of the game buying public. If you allow thing like that into your store your by proxy saying that you approve of it.