Support NeoGAF

[The Mad Draklor]

By the company and their research as to what the general public deems comfortable. Just like what is aired, for better or worse you have to take stock. This isn't something new. The same is true for Apple, MS, Google, and almost every big retailer in existence.

What was the methodology from their research? I.e. how large was the sample size, how was the data collected, etc.

You can't really claim that the identical case is true for other corporations when you haven't even described the finer details of their research in which we can use to compare.

 

[joe_zazen]

By the company and their research as to what the general public deems comfortable. Just like what is aired, for better or worse you have to take stock. This isn't something new. The same is true for Apple, MS, Google, and almost every big retailer in existence.

What makes you think this was based on research? It is all so ad hoc, vague, and unpredictable. They don't even have guidelines they can give to developers. It is totally like crossplay where nobody knows whats going on because they have no policies in place because no thought was given before hand. They are a bad partner for smaller devs because you cant plan around ‘well it depends on who you talk to and what day you decide to contact them.’

If they want to get rid of sexual content, that is OK by me. But you have to give your partners details on what you expect if you don't want to be seen as that chaotic asshole company. It fits in with their pivot from courting smaller devs to not giving two fucks about them, and not just niche JPN devs but indies in general as well.

 

[Three]

What was the methodology from their research? I.e. how large was the sample size, how was the data collected, etc.

You can't really claim that the identical case is true for other corporations when you haven't even described the finer details of their research in which we can use to compare.

Why would I need their research methodology to be able to understand that their end policy is the same?

I mean look at the wording here

Restricted Content - Play Console Help

play.google.com

Notice it says it is for everyone. Therefore it tries to create store policy that is welcoming for the majority and not for an individual becuase 'we live in a free country' . Having a free for all because 'FREEDOM' will make it unpleasant for what I assume is the majority and they only care about that if a) it's law or b) it loses customers.

Click on through to inappropriate content and notice 'sexually suggestive poses' and 'sexual acts'. These will be the stuff they ask to remove or reject entirely. Same goes for the other companies mentioned.

 

[joe_zazen]

Why would I need their research methodology to be able to understand that their end policy is the same?

I mean look at the wording here

Restricted Content - Play Console Help

play.google.com

Notice it says it is for everyone. Therefore it tries to create store policy that is welcoming for the majority and not for an individual becuase 'we live in a free country' . Having a free for all because 'FREEDOM' will make it unpleasant for what I assume is the majority and they only care about that if a) it's law or b) it loses customers.

Click on through to inappropriate content and notice 'sexually suggestive poses' and 'sexual acts'. These will be the stuff they ask to remove or reject entirely. Same goes for the other companies mentioned.

& where is sony’s version of that for devs?

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Why would I need their research methodology to be able to understand that their end policy is the same?

I mean look at the wording here

Restricted Content - Play Console Help

play.google.com

Notice it says it is for everyone. Therefore it tries to create store policy that is welcoming for the majority and not for an individual becuase 'we live in a free country' . Having a free for all because 'FREEDOM' will make it unpleasant for what I assume is the majority and they only care about that if a) it's law or b) it loses customers.

Click on through to inappropriate content and notice 'sexually suggestive poses' and 'sexual acts'. These will be the stuff they ask to remove or reject entirely. Same goes for the other companies mentioned.

Because just saying "Company X did research" isn't a good enough reason. Anyone can say they did research, but if the methodology is utter trash then why should I put it in serious consideration?

You can link to Google's terms as many times as you like. That is not their research, however.

 

[Geki-D]

This is 22 years old female in Japan

lol This is not your average 22 year old from Japan. I'm sorry but that's some amazing cherry picking right there.

 

[Three]

Because just saying "Company X did research" isn't a good enough reason. Anyone can say they did research, but if the methodology is utter trash then why should I put it in serious consideration?

You can link to Google's terms as many times as you like. That is not their research, however.

Obviously it isn't and nobody is saying that the methodology must be great or even bad but policies are based on market research and law usually. The link was to show the policy outcome and that those major companies exclude these things. As I said, I assume to exclude the few to appease the many.

 

[Three]

& where is sony’s version of that for devs?

You have to sign for an NDA with them to get their policies for publishing on the store I believe.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Obviously it isn't and nobody is saying that the methodology must be great or even bad but policies are based on market research and law usually. The link was to show the policy outcome and that those major companies exclude these things. As I said, I assume to exclude the few to appease the many.

Of which the reasons why they want to exclude these "things" are not made transparent. In addition, there are different methods for exclusion so how do the companies know that their type of exclusion is the best way?

 

[taihenner]

Isn't that a little bit late? Like evety God of War game has Kratos having sex with women and it's just there for no reason plot or game-wise if I am not correct.

 

[Three]

Of which the reasons why they want to exclude these "things" are not made transparent. In addition, there are different methods for exclusion so how do the companies know that their type of exclusion is the best way?

Unfortunately market research isn't academic research and it's not about sharing your results. So what you are asking for is unlikely to ever be transparent.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

lol This is not your average 22 year old from Japan. I'm sorry but that's some amazing cherry picking right there.

Having attended college in Japan, it isn't exactly uncommon. Heck, I was watching the new Running Man (a Korean variety show) last night, and it had a 24 year old girl who looked 14.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

Softcore, yeah I actually do think some are. Even if we were to assume none, you are being obtuse and missing the point as usual. It was about those who may find particular types of content unpleasant and you trying to pass them of as just pixels. Actual porn is also just pixels or ink. Now you've moved on to some other shit.

I am missing no point here, this is what you said:

By the company and their research as to what the general public deems comfortable

So tell me, what the general public is more comfortable with.

1. Big boobs and bare asses.

OR

2. 2 14 year old girls going mouth to mouth?

 

[The Mad Draklor]

lol This is not your average 22 year old from Japan. I'm sorry but that's some amazing cherry picking right there.

He's not claiming that Asians looking younger than they actually are are common, just that such people exist in Japan and East Asia. Case in point:

 

[Three]

I am missing no point here, this is what you said:



So tell me, what the general public is more comfortable with.

1. Big boobs and bare asses.

OR

2. 2 14 year old girls going mouth to mouth?

How many times do we have to cover the idea that boobs and asses are not out of the scope of what is allowed and more the idea of games that appeal to children having adult themes coming into play and what some may deem as perverted.

You can keep returning and repeating the same tired points when your argument falls apart though so keep at it.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

How many times do we have to cover the idea that boobs and asses are not out of the scope of what is allowed and more the idea of games that appeal to children having adult themes coming into play and what some may deem as perverted.

You can keep returning and repeating the same tired points when your argument falls apart though so keep at it.

The bolded is factually incorrect. Rated M games do not appeal to children.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

How many times do we have to cover the idea that boobs and asses are not out of the scope of what is allowed and more the idea of games that appeal to children having adult themes coming into play and what some may deem as perverted.

You can keep returning and repeating the same tired points when your argument falls apart though so keep at it.

The games Sony decided to censor where not appealing to children the lowest age rating for them was 16 for PEGI or 17+ for ESRB. And you still have not answered me question.

What the general public is more comfortable with.

1. Big boobs and bare asses.

OR

2. 2 14 year old girls going mouth to mouth?

 

[joe_zazen]

You have to sign for an NDA with them to get their policies for publishing on the store I believe.

Sony doesn't have guidelines for their new policy. This is the problem, how do you comply without knowing the standards? It is either incompetence, a great way to tell devs we don't want your business, or both. I am going with #3 because if the laughably bad handling of crossplay and dev relations is so similar to this.

 

[Three]

The bolded is factually incorrect. Rated M games do not appeal to children.

The games Sony decided to censor where not appealing to children the lowest age rating for them was 16 for PEGI or 17+ for ESRB. And you still have not answered me question.

What the general public is more comfortable with.

1. Big boobs and bare asses.

OR

2. 2 14 year old girls going mouth to mouth?

First off if you are talking about the old game this is irrelevant because they were not doing anything back then. If you are talking about the new game they are not 14. They are of legal age and it's a kiss. A kiss or sex in games is acceptable. A cartoon game around fondeling breasts of a girl standing there in questionable school clothes I feel would be found more perverted and questionable. Anything else you want my opinion on or are these just pixels you're being offended by too?

This has nothing to do with the ratings system. Retailers and stores completely block AO rated content too based on this fact of creating a curated store even though they can 'just leave it to the ratings board'. It's not about 'being a free country'. You just keep trying to take the conversation on a tangent.

 

[joe_zazen]

The games Sony decided to censor where not appealing to children the lowest age rating for them was 16 for PEGI or 17+ for ESRB. And you still have not answered me question.

What the general public is more comfortable with.

1. Big boobs and bare asses.

OR

2. 2 14 year old girls going mouth to mouth?

Neither. Here is an anecdote that kinda encapsulates American family values and mores:

A few years ago at christmas time, i overheard a mother asking a clerk which game to get for her 11 y.o. boy. She said something like, ‘I want something popular but no sexy stuff.’ She bought ‘call of duty’.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

First off if you are talking about the old game this is irrelevant because they were not doing anything back then. If you are talking about the new game they are not 14. They are of legal age and it's a kiss. A kiss or sex in games is acceptable. A cartoon game around fondeling breasts of a girl standing there in questionable school clothes I feel would be found more perverted and questionable. Anything else you want my opinion on or are these just pixels you're being offended by too?

I am simply going through your own yardstick here, you said that "the company has done their research as to what the general public deems comfortable." and we know Sony is planning to censor Catherine: Full Body at least in the West, so we see they have no problems in censoring older games that arrive in PS4, ergo, by your yardstick, that means Sony has done research and has found that 2 14-year-old girls going mouth-to-mouth is more acceptable that full grown adults showing bare ass and lots of cleavage.

This has nothing to do with the ratings system. Retailers and stores completely block AO rated content too based on this fact of creating a curated store even though they can 'just leave it to the ratings board'. It's not about 'being a free country'. You just keep trying to take the conversation on a tangent.

You are nothing more than ignorant the same games that PS4 has censored have been released and sold on Switch in retailers uncensored everywhere, but keep shilling.

 

[Three]

I am simply going through your own yardstick here, you said that "the company has done their research as to what the general public deems comfortable." and we know Sony is planning to censor Catherine: Full Body at least in the West, so we see they have no problems in censoring older games that arrive in PS4, ergo, by your yardstick, that means Sony has done research and has found that 2 14-year-old girls going mouth-to-mouth is more acceptable that full grown adults showing bare ass and lots of cleavage.



You are nothing more than ignorant the same games that PS4 has censored have been released and sold on Switch in retailers uncensored everywhere, but keep shilling.

you can't keep on a straight line can you.

Ignorant to what? It's the fact that you don't know those specific games are not rated AO and that you have again missed the point about retailers and digital stores curating instead of simply rating a game. instead you've gone off on one of your 'remove the browser', 'it's just pixels', 'but it's on switch' tangents.

Also Full body IS a new release, is not even out or confirmed to be censored but most importantly of all it requires new certificatation because it's a new game but I don't expect you to understand that when somebody has pointed out the flaw in your logic. What are we going to go back to: 14 year old kiss, I hope.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

you can't keep on a straight line can you.

Ignorant to what? It's the fact that you don't know those specific games are not rated AO and that you have again missed the point about retailers and digital stores curating instead of simply rating a game and instead you've gone off on one of your 'remove the browser', 'it's just pixels', 'but it's on switch' tangents.

Also Full body IS a new release, is not even out or confirmed to be censored but most importantly of all it requires new certificatation because it's a new game but I don't expect you to understand that when somebody has pointed out the flaw in your logic.

So predictable, a new post of you that you literally say nothing more and you continue avoiding direct questions. Of course you would, you are not here to discuss with us, you are here to shill for your favourite corporate overlord.

I will ask them again, so you can avoid them again.

You said, in regards to Sony that "the company has done their research as to what the general public deems comfortable." and we know Sony is planning to censor Catherine: Full Body at least in the West, so we see they have no problems in censoring older games that arrive in PS4, ergo, by your yardstick, that means Sony has done research and has found that 2 14-year-old girls going mouth-to-mouth is more acceptable that full grown adults showing bare ass and lots of cleavage. Just in case, Catherine is rated M for Mature and has been rated for the past 4 months.

So, retailers do not force Sony to censor the games that appear on their platform, as they also don't force Nintendo to censor the games that appear on Switch, so, you agree that Sony is censoring games because of agenda and not some hypothetical "research".

 

[Three]

You said, in regards to Sony that "the company has done their research as to what the general public deems comfortable." and we know Sony is planning to censor Catherine: Full Body at least in the West, so we see they have no problems in censoring older games that arrive in PS4, ergo, by your yardstick, that means Sony has done research and has found that 2 14-year-old girls going mouth-to-mouth is more acceptable that full grown adults showing bare ass and lots of cleavage. Just in case, Catherine is rated M for Mature and has been rated for the past 4 months.

So as I suspected nothing to do with what I said. Thanks for the confirmation. Also where is your proof thay Sony is going to censor Full Body in the west and if it does what has that got to do with what I said? Oh you went back to the 14 year old kiss

So, retailers do not force Sony to censor the games that appear on their platform, as they also don't force Nintendo to censor the games that appear on Switch, so, you agree that Sony is censoring games because of agenda and not some hypothetical "research".

WTF are you talking about? Who said such a thing? I'm going to guess English is not your first language since there is no way you are misinterpreting what I have said so badly and going on a tangent to win an argument.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

So as I suspected nothing to do with what I said. Thanks for the confirmation. Also where is your proof thay Sony is going to censor Full Body in the west and if it does what has that got to do with what I said?

is this your MO? Projection? Answer my questions first and then I might answer your own. Also, Google is your friend: http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2018..._body_developer_cant_give_a_definitive_answer

WTF are you talking about? Who said such a thing? I'm going to guess English is not your first language since there is no way you are misinterpreting what I have said so badly and going on a tangent to win an argument.

"Retailers and stores completely block AO rated content too based on this fact of creating a curated store even though they can 'just leave it to the ratings board'"

So, which AO content appears on those games? I want specific examples, which retailers have blocked content from those games?
Which of those games are AO?

 

[The Mad Draklor]

First off if you are talking about the old game this is irrelevant because they were not doing anything back then. If you are talking about the new game they are not 14. They are of legal age and it's a kiss. A kiss or sex in games is acceptable. A cartoon game around fondeling breasts of a girl standing there in questionable school clothes I feel would be found more perverted and questionable. Anything else you want my opinion on or are these just pixels you're being offended by too?

This has nothing to do with the ratings system. Retailers and stores completely block AO rated content too based on this fact of creating a curated store even though they can 'just leave it to the ratings board'. It's not about 'being a free country'. You just keep trying to take the conversation on a tangent.

Pointing out that games that appeal to children have adult themes is factually incorrect is not going on a tangent, especially when you were the one that made that claim.

 

[Three]

is this your MO? Projection? Answer my questions first and then I might answer your own. Also, Google is your friend: http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2018..._body_developer_cant_give_a_definitive_answer




"Retailers and stores completely block AO rated content too based on this fact of creating a curated store even though they can 'just leave it to the ratings board'"

So, which AO content appears on those games? I want specific examples, which retailers have blocked content from those games?
Which of those games are AO?

So you point to an article that you haven't actually read and says nothing. Cool. And I've answered your question if you bother to read.

For the third time. The idea is that retailers and digital stores dictate what is appropriate to sell in their stores and do not simply say well the ratings body has rated it this. The ratings body is irrelevant and not the end all of what is sold there. They choose to sell or not sell items based on what they deem inappropriate or perverted.

Pointing out that games that appeal to children have adult themes is factually incorrect is not going on a tangent, especially when you were the one that made that claim.

No, going on about the ratings board is because they don't decide what is sold or isn't sold in a store. Going on about 'it's just pixels' is. Going on about removing the browser is.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

So you point to an article that you haven't actually read and says nothing. Cool. And I've answered your question if you bother to read.

I've read, you should read it more carefully.

They choose to sell or not sell items based on what they deem inappropriate or perverted.

And what is innapropriate or perverted for them that is not for MS, Nintendo and Steam?

 

[Three]

I've read, you should read it more carefully.



And what is innapropriate or perverted for them that is not for MS, Nintendo and Steam?

Sure buddy.
You mean steam and Nintendo or are we treading old ground again.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

Sure buddy.
You mean steam and Nintendo or are we treading old ground again.

All three in different cases.

 

[Endless Fluff]

They choose to sell or not sell items based on what they deem inappropriate or perverted

The retailer here still has unlimited stocks of all them perverted games, but he refuses to get the new games in stock unless they're toned down. The retailer here would place the censored version of Senran Kagura Burst Re:Newal (removed intimacy mode) besides Senran Kagura Peach Beach Splash and Estival Versus which both have that same intimacy mode intact on that platform.

It's hypocritical to say they're worried about the children, or their image, when they're doing this. It's a half assed overreaction to the MeToo movement and fear of social outrage they might get themselves into if they keep having them games. Anime school girl T&A have never been an issue for US citizens (or the rest of the world) and that's a thing since the 90s and has pretty much peaked in perversion ever since To Love-Ru Darkness.

I mean, sure... Sony can do whatever they want, but when they decide to go down that path, then at least remove old games, or force devs to patch them. If they can't, then pay them off so you don't break contract when you remove them from PSN... but Sony isn't doing that, because they seem to not know what they want.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

No, going on about the ratings board is because they don't decide what is sold or isn't sold in a store. Going on about 'it's just pixels' is. Going on about removing the browser is.

Your thesis was that there are games that appeal to children have adult themes. I pointed out that the games that have been censored are rated M, meaning that these games are not meant for children. Hence, your claim is false.

I used the ratings to prove my point that the games that Sony has been censoring are not geared towards children. I did not use the ratings board to talk about what is allowed to be sold or not sold in a store. It is ironic that you are accusing others for going on a tangent, get criticized for making an unfounded accusation, and then proceed to go off on a tangent in response.

 

[Three]

Your thesis was that there are games that appeal to children have adult themes. I pointed out that the games that have been censored are rated M, meaning that these games are not meant for children. Hence, your claim is false.

I used the ratings to prove my point that the games that Sony has been censoring are not geared towards children. I did not use the ratings board to talk about what is allowed to be sold or not sold in a store. It is ironic that you are accusing others for going on a tangent, get criticized for making an unfounded accusation, and then proceed to go off on a tangent in response.

They are not meant for children nor does the ratings board consider them to be but the general theme and example that I brought up was that a mom could be outraged at a cartoon game having these themes because of cultural differences. Besides the tangent to my point was about Switch having them or something else being raised when I directly answered his questions as to how the ratings board does not decide what given stores will allow or deem appropriate. His tangents were about these being just pixels, or how the browser should be removed.

Could you at the very least admit that nobody said anything related to this

So, retailers do not force Sony to censor the games that appear on their platform,as they also don't force Nintendo to censor the games that appear on Switch,

And is therefore a tangent?

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

They are not meant for children nor does the ratings board consider them to be but the general theme was that a mom would be outraged at a cartoon game having these themes because of cultural differences. Besides the tangent to my point was about Switch having them or something else being raised when I directly answered his questions

You are a liar, you answered nothing, all you are doing in this thread is avoiding questions, do mental gymnastics and shill for your favourite piece of plastic.

Also, why would a mom be offended by Mature games? What has Sony done about moms that are outraged from CoD and GTA and why does a mom being outraged has anything to do with digital curated stores?

I am oh-so-eagerly awaiting the excuses.

 

[Three]

You are a liar, you answered nothing, all you are doing in this thread is avoiding questions, do mental gymnastics and shill for your favourite piece of plastic.

Also, why would a mom be offended by Mature games? What has Sony done about moms that are outraged from CoD and GTA and why does a mom being outraged has anything to do with digital curated stores?

I am oh-so-eagerly awaiting the excuses.

Because had you read the thread you would have seen somebody already mention how people seem less offended by things like COD than sexy stuff and it affecting GTAs promotion of vice would be a majority game. It would not fly as easily. A mom being outraged goes back to why they choose to curate a store in the first place. I know you have difficulty following along but you can't keep asking stuff that's already been answered by just calling people liars and shills. It's pathetic. Clearly we aren't getting anywhere so peace out.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

They are not meant for children nor does the ratings board consider them to be but the general theme and example that I brought up was that a mom could be outraged at a cartoon game having these themes because of cultural differences. Besides the tangent to my point was about Switch having them or something else being raised when I directly answered his questions as to how the ratings board does not decide what given stores will allow or deem appropriate. His tangents were about these being just pixels, or how the browser should be removed.

Could you at the very least admit that nobody said anything related to this

This is the claim that I addressed (emphasis on bold):

How many times do we have to cover the idea that boobs and asses are not out of the scope of what is allowed and more the idea of games that appeal to children having adult themes coming into play and what some may deem as perverted.

You can keep returning and repeating the same tired points when your argument falls apart though so keep at it.

That was it. Now, you're singing a different tune: the games are not meant for children.

And because these games are not meant for children, why do are bringing up hypothetical mom getting outraged at a cartoon game with sexual themes when that game is not meant for her child? This is a total non sequitur.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

And because these games are not meant for children, why do are bringing up hypothetical mom getting outraged at a cartoon game with sexual themes when that game is not meant for her child? This is a total non sequitur.

- Because the norm for games is kids

- Because the norm for girls in kiddie outfits giggling is cute children's cartoons

- Mom and pop are expecting companies to have ethics, and not allow games with unusual titles with anime girls in high school outfits to have modes like the game above where you can grab their tits and asses with digital handprints

- That's why Killer Kratos can hack off heads and have sex minigames. Adult character games with no misleading kids scenes. Now if God of War had that sidekick kid suddenly change into Kratos/kid child groping sex scenes it wouldn't be allowed

 

[The Mad Draklor]

- Mom and pop are expecting companies to have ethics, and not allow games with unusual titles with anime girls in high school outfits to have modes like the game above where you can grab their tits and asses with digital handprints

And yet you say this without verifiable proof. In addition, we would hear that from Sony, not you.

If that was the reason from the beginning, then we wouldn’t be hearing Sony using the #MeToo movement as their reason either.

Aaand the PS4 already has parental functionality that allows parents to control what games their children can play. As a result, the concerns that you claim the parents have are already addressed.

My previous comment still stands, as well, as you didn’t address those points either. Games that are rated for mature audiences are not meant for children. As a result, there’s no need to bring mommy into the conversation unless you think parents perceive mature games to be suitable for children...

 

[StreetsofBeige]

And yet you say this without verifiable proof. In addition, we would hear that from Sony, not you.

If that was the reason from the beginning, then we wouldn’t be hearing Sony using the #MeToo movement as their reason either.

Aaand the PS4 already has parental functionality that allows parents to control what games their children can play. As a result, the concerns that you claim the parents have are already addressed.

Read the OP's post with the WSJ quote.

Whether you like it or not (obviously not), Sony is cracking down on kiddie smut as they don't want young gamers seeing it or having access to it.

Don't blame me. I don't work at Sony. But out of Sony, MS and Nintendo, Sony is the one cracking down on this, while the other two don't care. If you don't care about a WSJ statement, you should ask Sony why they are cracking down. And if they don't want to answer you, just use your head as to why. You shouldn't need official PR to determine what's going on.

 

[Claus Grimhildyr]

Read the OP's post with the WSJ quote.

Whether you like it or not (obviously not), Sony is cracking down on kiddie smut as they don't want young gamers seeing it or having access to it.

Don't blame me. I don't work at Sony. But out of Sony, MS and Nintendo, Sony is the one cracking down on this, while the other two don't care. If you don't care about a WSJ statement, you should ask Sony why they are cracking down. And if they don't want to answer you, just use your head as to why. You shouldn't need official PR to determine what's going on.

> Kiddie Smut

Despite the fact that inane claim has been disproven time and again in this very thread, but please - keep making that same claim.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Read the OP's post with the WSJ quote.

Whether you like it or not (obviously not), Sony is cracking down on kiddie smut as they don't want young gamers seeing it or having access to it.

Don't blame me. I don't work at Sony. But out of Sony, MS and Nintendo, Sony is the one cracking down on this, while the other two don't care. If you don't care about a WSJ statement, you should ask Sony why they are cracking down. And if they don't want to answer you, just use your head as to why. You shouldn't need official PR to determine what's going on.

“Kiddie smut”whose target audience is adults... Sure dude, continue with the non sequitur...

 

[StreetsofBeige]

If you want to have your jollies jerking to this go ahead, but Sony doesn't want this kind of stuff in western regions in case kids see it. Too bad. If you want it so bad, buy an import copy and hope your system doesn't auto-download a patch.

 

[Claus Grimhildyr]

If you want to have your jollies jerking to this go ahead, but Sony doesn't want this kind of stuff in western regions in case kids see it. Too bad. If you want it so bad, buy an import copy and hope your system doesn't auto-download a patch.

You really love running to that idiotic phrase, don't you? Can't properly defend your position so you just make that baseless accusation. Do better.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

If you want to have your jollies jerking to this go ahead, but Sony doesn't want this kind of stuff in western regions in case kids see it. Too bad. If you want it so bad, buy an import copy and hope your system doesn't auto-download a patch.

Who are you even talking to? Where are these people who are saying Sony shouldn't be allowed to censor Japanese games?

Ah, right. It's one of these notions where criticizing a company's policy is the same thing as telling what a company can/can't do. Oh, and good job at not addressing my point that these games are not meant for children again...

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You really love running to that idiotic phrase, don't you? Can't properly defend your position so you just make that baseless accusation. Do better.

Do better? Sure.

In your opinion, which anime girl is better looking? The school girl in the video or your avatar pic?

lol

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Do better? Sure.

In your opinion, which anime girl is better looking? The school girl in the video or your avatar pic?

lol

Going full red herring, eh? I guess if you can't come up with a convincing counterargument, just throw random topics out of nowhere.

 

[MagnesG]

I’m sure it will become a different scenario when games like Cyberpun 2077 come out, it’s the only reason they had these vague guidelines in the first place. Hypocrites much?

Now I’m concerned about Yakuza games. Well they could always migrate to Steam and other platforms.

Read the OP's post with the WSJ quote.

Whether you like it or not (obviously not), Sony is cracking down on kiddie smut as they don't want young gamers seeing it or having access to it.

Don't blame me. I don't work at Sony. But out of Sony, MS and Nintendo, Sony is the one cracking down on this, while the other two don't care. If you don't care about a WSJ statement, you should ask Sony why they are cracking down. And if they don't want to answer you, just use your head as to why. You shouldn't need official PR to determine what's going on.

That is what parental control is all about though, and Nintendo for example did a damn good job to the point of parents feeling safe for children to play on it.

I guess you want to say “it’s all business”. I’d say Sony is being kind of pushover when that is not the case at all in the first place.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Going full red herring, eh? I guess if you can't come up with a convincing counterargument, just throw random topics out of nowhere.

You and Archae can argue with me all night if you want. But whether you want to believe me or the WSJ statement doesn't matter.

Because at the end of the day Sony is cracking down on anything sexual with kids and anime. Just got to accept it.

Now if you want your games to get a green light with violence, drugs, sex and T&A, play a game like GTA which is full of it, play LoU2 with teenage girls lesbo kissing, or DMC asses being green lit after a patch as they realized it was adult bums.

But if you want your kiddie/anime paw prints on digital girl's chests and asses, they are decreasing in number on Sony platforms going forward.

You guys are wasting your time posting against a forum user like me. Go email Sony Public Relations for an answer and change in censorship.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

You and Archae can argue with me all night if you want. But whether you want to believe me or the WSJ statement doesn't matter.

Because at the end of the day Sony is cracking down on anything sexual with kids and anime. Just got to accept it.

Now if you want your games to get a green light with violence, drugs, sex and T&A, play a game like GTA which is full of it, play LoU2 with teenage girls lesbo kissing, or DMC asses being green lit after a patch as they realized it was adult bums.

But if you want your kiddie/anime paw prints on digital girl's chests and asses, they are decreasing in number on Sony platforms going forward.

You guys are wasting your time posting against a forum user like me. Go email Sony Public Relations for an answer and change in censorship.

Argue with you about what? How games that are catered to mature audiences are somehow meant for children by some voodoo mental gymnastics?

You’re here because you’re upset that other people are criticizing Sony’s censorship policy. If us pointing out at Sony’s hypocrisy and the contradictions from censorship apologists bother you that much, you can simply ignore the thread and move on

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

If you want to have your jollies jerking to this go ahead...

Hey buddy, what I jerk to is none of your business. The only people who need to know that are the people who are personally involved, which is just myself, your mom, a circus midget, 300 individually packaged pudding cups, and this little monkey that you wind up and it bangs his cymbals together, or would if not for the fact that I lost his cymbals somewhere that may require medical intervention to locate. You are not invited.