Thank you whoever knew I needed this specific thing today.

schuyguy posted:

Consumers demanding that Valve show editorial judgement and curate their store is what led to all these games being blocked in the first place. And somehow the solution is to... demand that Valve show editorial judgement and curate their collection? That just doesn't make any sense.

I mean if you want to be intellectually dishonest about what people are actually saying, that's one way to interpret it. But there's two problems with that statement-

1) That's not what happened.

2) Even if it were, you're arguing under the assumption that editorial judgment can only be done way or can't be amended to work under different principles.

The reason these games were blocked was because Valve received mass reports and, instead of investigating like a proper company run by actual human beings, decided to take the reports at face value and threaten to take the games down without so much as stating a reason. That's not what I would call "editorial judgment" anymore than I would call YouTube's copyright algorithms editorial judgment. By contrast, when Valve did start to suspect that something was amiss, they showed actual editorial judgment by redacting their takedown threats when proper investigation revealed that the reports were fraudulent. It wasn't editorial judgment or curation that put those games in the hot seat, it was a lack thereof.

And let's play with your hypothesis that it was a case of bad human judgment, I don't quite understand your logic that because they messed up one way, that we must accept that it can only be done that way? Why not hire people with better judgment? Adjust your employee handbooks and code of conduct to suit the needs of the store? Amend your business strategy to account for incidents like this? Again, these are things that happen all the time in the business world, regardless of the actual size of the business. There is literally no reason Valve can't adapt. It's essentially like saying that because I don't like one forum's moderators that the only solution is to have no moderators, as opposed to, you know, just having better moderators or a changing moderation policy altogether.

schuyguy posted:

It's a similar situation to itch.io. Sure, there are a few hidden gems on that store front if you have a few hours to kill searching for them. But that doesn't negate the fact that 99% of the games on that store are awful. Granted, I don't blame itch.io for that because it's a smaller company that is by design intended to be a DeviantArt style platform except for games. So it's to be expected with the territory. Steam, on the other hand, is one of the biggest digital storefronts in the world, run by one of the most reputable game publishers that doesn't make games anymore in the world. I personally expect just a little more from them. At the very least, I expect that if they want to operate like a public entity, they should also have to take on the legal and social responsibilities of being a public entity.

I honestly don't see what responsibility Valve has to curate the Steam marketplace (except in that they must remove content that is illegal). If you buy some shitty game on Steam, then that's not their fault. They don't make any guarantee of quality. It's like blaming a shopping mall for the fact that one of the restaurants in the food court sells super shitty overpriced food. Maybe that's a problem for the health inspectors, but if they don't get involved, the mall has no responsibility to cancel the lease. Maybe there's a case to be made that they should remove games that literally don't even work, or at least post warnings if they get complaints, but even that is really optional.

You're assuming I'm talking solely about quality as in "I personally don't like this game." If I buy a game, and I don't like it, I agree, that's on me. If I buy a game, knowing FULLY well it's going to be offensive, that's again, on me. Doesn't make the game any less of an abomination, but of course, it's my wallet, and I bought of my own volition and thus should be responsible for that. But if I get a product that makes promises it can't keep, or literally can't even be launched, it is Valve's responsibility to take action. If a user buys something from Amazon or eBay that is anything other than what it promises to be, if they go through the right avenues, that seller usually gets banned. Which doesn't stop them from just creating a new account and doing it all over again, but I digress Similar to the fact that a waiver of liability contract doesn't give you a free ticket to do whatever you want no matter how dangerous, relieving yourself of the responsibility of your store's content only comes into play when you demonstrate an active effort into not making your store a terrible place.

But here's my problem with this. Valve gets a not-insignificant portion of the revenue earned from all games sold on Steam, in addition to the money they get for renting the space out. They aren't just facilitating a transaction, they are directly profiting off of all the money that trades hands on Steam. If they are going to make money off of it, that inherently MAKES it their responsibility to know what the hell is going on in their store. Just like a hypothetical mall would be responsible for knowing what's being sold in their food court. It's not that they have to bend to the will of people's tastes (although they kind of do if they want to, you know, make money, but that's a different matter), but if the majority of the restaurants in their food court is inedible or not fit for human consumption, then that is their responsibility to examine it and make sure nothing weird is going on. Like, you don't get to make money off of something and then feign innocence. Just like I can't knowingly accept money from my friends' money laundering scheme to pay for college and then just wave my hands and say "well, I just ACCEPTED the stolen money, I didn't steal it myself" when the FBI comes knocking on my door.

And even if we remove legality from this, we can still criticize a store for having stupid, anti-consumer practices. Like, even if hypothetically speaking, they weren't legally responsible for it, it's still >basic business sense< to have even a small amount of control over what you sell. And just because Amazon does it, too, doesn't make it okay. Store curation is something that literally every store does. Even itch.io, being a mess of a store front that it is, will crack down on games that it does not want being promoted on its platform.

Part of the reason I prefer to shop at Target over Wal-Mart is because their standards of quality, in my opinion, are marginally better. Their clothes are slightly higher quality, the Target exclusive dolls are better than their Wal-Mart equivalents. That's because Target does have more strict quality control. That's not to say that Target doesn't have its own share of problems, such as having worse customer service from my experience. It's not their "responsibility" to have those things, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize them for not having it.

And I'm not saying I >agree< with all curation policies. Wal-Mart's infamous changing of Nirvana's "Rape Me" to "Waif Me" is particularly dumb. But even if I don't agree with it, the fact that they're showing some kind of concern for what their customers might buy in their store is still better than nothing. It's basic decency as a company to give a shit about this kind of thing. I'm not daft; I get that if consumers were willing to unquestioningly buy whatever cheap, broken shit at double the price without complaining at all, any store would immediately jump on that ship. But last I checked, we praised companies for having good will towards their customers and criticized them for not having that. That's just how these things... you know... work.

Wtv posted:

When I said they don't endorse it, I did meant it ideologically, not as a product. Like, take AIDS Simulator as an example. The very presentation of the game says it's a shitty racist game, so if you bought it, it means you want a shitty racist game, and that's what you get. But I agree that saying "any game will be accepted" means that devs can outright lie what their games are about and you end up with something you didn't want. Although that's why steam has their refund policy (that I don't agree with, but that's another point).
I never saw steam as synonymous of quality, to tell the truth. Steam is just a place where games are cheap because of monetary conversation, since paying in dollar isn't usually a good idea for me. Their front store is completely useless to me, so it's only a place I go to buy a game I saw elsewhere. As you said GoG can reject even devs who actually put a lot of work in their games, so if steam start to do the same, those devs won't have any place to go, since selling by themselves they'll usually lose a lot of market. International market, for example. So while steam quality control is garbage, I think it does some good. And they still have the biggest public, so clearly there's demand for that. And seriously, most of the time trash games are very easy to identify, so if someone buys it, they only have themselves to blame.
Anyway, I don't even like Steam. I don't remember the last time I used them (I think it was to buy Fatal Twelve, and I still didn't play it. It wouldn't be possible to me to get it anywhere else). I just think they're convenient, and quality control was never their strong point.

Also, do pharmacies really used to sell cigarettes in USA? That's weird.

It's not so much a problem that these bad games are hard to identify, it's the problem that there are literally so many of them that they drown out the games that, regardless of quality, were made with actual care. This is such a problem that reportedly about 40% of Steam's ENTIRE library (yes, ENTIRE library) was released in 2016.

https://www.polygon.com/2016/12/1/13807904/steam-releases-2016-growth

This includes games from big-name publishers that you see everywhere and breakthrough indie titles, but the overwhelming majority are Steam Direct games that have little to no effort put into them. Some of which don't even have an executable file to run, some of which are just sample games you can download elsewhere for free guised as a different product. And because Steam is open to literally EVERYONE, including these kinds of games and scams disguised as games, we can't even give the credit of "Steam is doing good by giving indie games exposure." Because they're getting little to no exposure underneath the massive pile of less-than-legitimate games. And that being said, "exposure" is not always "good exposure." Being lumped in with every asset flip and scam is not exactly the best kind of publicity.

It's a similar situation to itch.io. Sure, there are a few hidden gems on that store front if you have a few hours to kill searching for them. But that doesn't negate the fact that 99% of the games on that store are awful. Granted, I don't blame itch.io for that because it's a smaller company that is by design intended to be a DeviantArt style platform except for games. So it's to be expected with the territory. Steam, on the other hand, is one of the biggest digital storefronts in the world, run by one of the most reputable game publishers that doesn't make games anymore in the world. I personally expect just a little more from them. At the very least, I expect that if they want to operate like a public entity, they should also have to take on the legal and social responsibilities of being a public entity.

This was really sweet and cute! I hope they'll be able to be together again!!

When your boss wants to lose all her customers just so she can have sex with you.

Wtv posted:

You endorse something by selling it, if I buy beans at Walmart and when I open the tin it’s actually human fingers I get a refund from Walmart and they stop stocking those beans.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. You'll get a refund because you wanted to buy beans, not human fingers. The Walmart won't stock those beans anymore because there isn't a demand for human fingers (and it's criminal). If human fingers become popular and decriminalized, you can be sure Walmart will stock it.
You don't see supermarket stop selling cigarettes because it can kill you, or alcohol. A lot of owners probably hate cigarettes and alcohol, but they'll still stock it. When we used to rent movies, it wasn't rare to ask the proprietary about their opinion about a movie you were curious, and some of them would even say "it's garbage".
You not always endorse what you sell. Sometimes it's just business.

Now, it would be nice if steam would filter their content more, but what is or not allowed would be decided by biased people in ways steam can't control. They have a lot of games in their store, and if someone report Kindred Spirits saying it's a pedophiliac game, maybe the people reviewing it will agree with the report (and to begin with, the girls are underage in the original). Or, more likely, no one will take 60 hours of their time to play a game they have no interest just to confirm that report. So if a lot of people report for the same reason, they'll just assume it's true, and that's how this mess was born.
I'm not sure if a game where the objective is kill minorities would pass, but most of the time, those games don't even exist, because it's bad business. They're usually sold with another premisse and that content is just a subtext inside. Even Hatred was just another game of killing people if you didn't research the devs history. When the game is exactly that, I'm not sure if it wouldn't be considered trolling.

I think you're confusing their point about false advertising with the ethics of selling actual human body parts. If Wal-Mart were selling cans full of human fingers disguised as a can of beans and knowingly did nothing about it, they would essentially be endorsing false advertising, and that's the issue they're talking about. By allowing something to be sold in their store, Wal-Mart makes a statement about the kinds of things it wants in its store front. It's basic quality control like this that Steam is attempting to relieve itself of, despite the fact that much bigger companies do this on a daily basis. That's not to say these values can't or don't change overtime, nor does it mean that it's always consistent. But for the time being, I trust that the beans I get from Wal-Mart will be beans when I open them up and not anything other than what it explicitly says on the tin.

I think you're also conflating the concept of business endorsement with personal endorsements. As I said in my previous posts, the suits at Wal-Mart's corporate meetings probably don't always agree with each other. There are probably things that Wal-Mart sells that they'd rather not sell. They don't endorse these things "personally." But the only important thing in a business endorsement is where the money goes. Anything that is sold on Wal-Mart's shelves serves as a reflection of their business. Money is exchanged to allow these goods to be sold at their facility. That is a form of endorsement. It's the reason why, in the United States, CVS pharmacies recently decided they were no longer going to stock cigarettes. Because the fact that a >pharmacy< where people go to buy medicine and other items for their health is financially endorsing tobacco smoking by keeping it in stock is... well, obviously a flawed business tactic at the very least.

The same is true for Steam and of all digital store fronts. In the midst of the Meme Run controversy, Nintendo took the game down because they decided they don't want to endorse copyright infringement (rather it's because it's unethical or because it's bad for business, it doesn't matter, they just don't want it on their store). GOG is a distribution platform that is infamously difficult to get onto to the point where even extremely well-established indie devs have faced rejection from them, and while I don't agree with their methodology, it is still a sign that they care about what they're selling. There is no reason a store front like Steam can not have these same governing principles that literally every store in existence usually establishes >before they even stock their shelves (virtual or otherwise) in the first place.<

Valve is basically throwing out excuses for why they can't do things that are demonstrably not impossible feats, and it's both costing real developers money as well as giving Steam a pretty poor image, even if they don't "personally" endorse them.

It also doesn't help that this "hands off" approach is exactly the problem that led to this statement needing to be made to begin with. I get that they don't want to stifle creativity and want to be a free, open market. And those are admirable goals, don't get me wrong. But there is a limit to how far that can go. You need to have some kind of stance when it comes to content that is bigoted and hateful. You need to take a stance against games that do not have an executable file or are just sample games sold under a different name. It doesn't matter how many times you say "The items on our store front do not reflect the views and opinions of our company." Whatever you let into your store makes a statement about your company, and the current statement that I'm getting is "we don't care."

Like, the statement seems to think that the ONLY issue here is about differing sociopolitical beliefs. But the real issue is that there seems to be no quality control whatsoever, leading to a mess of complications. And I don't buy this excuse that they can't come to a consensus because they're a big company with staff that all have very different worldviews. Just look at a company like Wal-Mart. It's probably the biggest retail chain in the world, much bigger than Valve could ever hope to be, and it still has strict guidelines on what it will and will not sell. And sure, Wal-Mart isn't known for being exceptionally high quality, but none would argue that their selection of items aren't at the very least serviceable. And it's not like all the staff and employees there agree with every single decision that Wal-Mart makes, but the fact that they DO have standards and quality control practices is why they're able to manage what they sell.

(Note that's not to say that Wal-Mart is always consistent or isn't often hypocritical in the way they enforce these standards, but having them at all is still better than what Valve's claiming it can't do)

Like, I'm glad that the games that were being threatened are no longer under pressure. That's great, and all. Just wish Steam would take a moment to LEARN something from this mistake instead of raising their hands in defeat. It's not befitting of one of the leading platform for digital distribution.

Why have I not seen this before? This is so blessed.

Nevri posted:

Tara posted:

But once again, I attribute this more to the fact that even the more expensive visual novels normally do not have the financial sway of other games. In the end, Valve is a corporation, and corporations tend to like money more than they tend to dislike specific game genres.

I get that. It is just that actually forcing 18+ games to be censored is both more work on developer part as well as for people who need to review them later. It just make no sense to do it, especially when there are already other games that are not censored at all. Having more money behind them, really doesn't change anything. I bet those VN would actually have more appeal and bring more people, if they weren't forced to be censored, when they are already marked as adult games. My point it, is seems like just waste of time and resources and there is no clear gain for Valve from doing it. Hence, I can't help but think that Valve have some issue with anime and anime styled games specifically.

Only other alternative I can think of there is some behind the curtain deal, where big corporations pay certain amount to have their game not be censored, smaller developers can't afford. That I could understand how Valve would profit from.

I mean you're absolutely right. It's silly, contradictory, hypocritical, and a waste of everyone's time and resources.

But it's not a problem with backroom deals... or, rather, it's not a problem with JUST backroom deals as I'm sure there are plenty of those, too. It's just simple human greed. For every game purchased on Steam, a portion of that sale goes to Valve. This is a sustainable form of income for big-name publishers, because they have big revenue spikes and slower, more gradual declines. Most visual novels, on the other hand, do not. Visual novels, particularly independent visual novels, tend to have a one, big revenue spike that peters out rather quickly. Sometimes interest will spike again due to an update or an abrupt cult following, but not often. Simple business smarts says that people are going be nicer to those that benefit them the most, and more money is more benefit to Valve. They are probably more lenient on other games, because they're still getting money off of them. In this case, there doesn't NEED to be any kind of shady, backroom deal to not have the game censored, because most of these games essentially pay for themselves.

As I said in my edit, I'm not saying this to defend Valve. Just saying that it's a problem, but not the same problem being levied as far as I'm aware.

Nevri posted:

Tara posted:

On that note, though, I don't believe this has anything to do with Valve having any preconceived disdain for visual novels or anything like that.

VN and games similar to them were unnecessary forced to be censored even when they are 18+ unlike every single other game there is on their platform. And it was like that since beginning of Steam. It is hard to believe Valve doesn't have some issue with them.

I'm not denying that Valve are extremely hypocritical and contradictory with their policies, especially in regards to VN's. There are definitely games that have raunchier, more explicit depictions of sex that Steam has absolutely no issues with whatsoever. That's shit, and it needs to be changed. I certainly don't deny that.

But once again, I attribute this more to the fact that even the more expensive visual novels normally do not have the financial sway of other games. In the end, Valve is a corporation, and corporations tend to like money more than they tend to dislike specific game genres.

EDIT: Should go without saying, but in case it's not obvious, I'm not saying this to defend Steam or anything. Just saying that I think the problem stems from something other than what is being levied.

last edited at May 24, 2018 6:18PM

Vankomycin posted:

For those who don't check the images on the regular, there's a new official Kase-san image from Takashima-sensei, and it's got the Marriage tag to boot.

https://dynasty-scans.com/images/9234

I'm so weak for wedding dress pictures. I cry every time.

This usually happens only on mobile for me. I usually find that going one or two images backwards and then trying again sometimes helps.

That ending escalated quickly.

I disagree with the disclaimer at the front. I think getting drunk and dating on a whim is very pure, even if it doesn't ultimately work out!!

In Valve's defense, mass reports are more often than not legitimate. Steam's current Direct system has bred so much shovelware, bait and switch games, games that do not come with an executable file, asset flips, sample games masquerading as original titles, etc. that when a large number of people report a game for having content that is objectionable, it's hard to NOT take it as face value. Steam's store front is trash, and unfortunately, and has resulted in an environment where Valve can not feasibly review every product before coming to a consensus.

THAT BEING SAID, that is also entirely their own fault. Their increased insistence over the years on relying on algorithms and automated processes, all in the name of avoiding having to pay another human being to assist with quality control, and their platform being open beyond the point of reason is what directly led to the Steam store front being the way it is now. And now honest devs who are legitimately trying their best to make a product that people might actually want to play are suffering for it. It's ridiculous.

On that note, though, I don't believe this has anything to do with Valve having any preconceived disdain for visual novels or anything like that. Visual novels just happen to be easier targets because they're cheaper, comparatively easier to make, and usually don't have the backing of AAA publishers who can sway them legally and financially. It's unfortunate, but I don't think it's malice on Steam's part. My main problem with this whole ordeal isn't even so much that it happened, but the fact that they are less than transparent about it. They issue these threatening letters that retroactively threaten games that have been on the platform for years with no guidelines or anything to help devs know what they need to do or even what they did wrong in the first place, and then expect them to comply with it or risk getting booted off the service. Communication is key here, and so far Valve has not effectively communicated to its clients.

In lighter news, though, Valve has sent an email to all the devs that have received the letters and asked them to disregard it. So apparently they have caught on to the fact that the reports were fraudulent and are currently working with devs to make sure it still fits within the guidelines set forth when the games were originally published on Steam.

Source: http://blog.mangagamer.org/2018/05/18/regarding-recent-inquires-into-steam-content-policy-notices/

I hope that Maidens of St. Michael is eventually brought back to Steam. Nothing against MangaGamer at all, but I don't like having stores that mostly sell adult stuff on my credit card history. I'm a prude, lol.

last edited at May 24, 2018 5:38PM

@Sakura Cartelet, I was moreso thinking of the early scene where Chika peaks beneath Riko's skirt to make sure she's not planning on jumping in the freezing cold water again.

Ropponmatsu posted:

If only Dynasty Scans had direct messaging... .__.

Or actual profiles instead of just a chronology of posts. @3@

That chocolate letter slays me. So cute!!!

"She reads books, zura!" got me. XD

Is this Love Live! Sunshine?

Psychological Horror

This was a good chapter.

last edited at Apr 28, 2018 11:51PM

I was hoping this thread would be more political and debate-heavy.

Reejun posted:

I haven't seen the raws but I guess "noble" is translated from 尊い in which case that's otaku slang and doesn't really mean "noble".

Going back to this, because I think I ought to have explained that what I mean about it being otaku slang is that in the last few years it has emerged as being a generic way to praise yuri stuff (and other otaku stuff, such as idols). To some extent it's like it has usurped "moe", which is dated now. And I don't think "moe" really fit all that well with yuri so it seems like it was especially easy for something else to take hold among yuri fans. So you could translate it as "precious" or something along those lines, but the word choice is more because it's a meme, rather than it being chosen for the word's real meaning.

Basically the Japanese equivalent of "precious cinnamon bun too pure for this world?" XP

I haven't read Bloom Into You and was just thinking today that I should finally get around to it, since it's been on my bucket list since forever.

Well, I guess now I have the right motivation to do that.