Quantcast
Valve removes Japanese game from steam because its audience are Pedophiles, according to them

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Valve removes Japanese game from steam because its audience are Pedophiles, according to them

DonFerrari said:
JWeinCom said:

How does that in any way warrant a lawsuit?

Accuse someone to produce pedophile content is a slander. And besides that they previously accepted the content on their platform. So you can be sure they can find ground for a lawsuit. And if Steam wants to avoid exposition they'll settle. Besides that, the plentiff may show that Steam accepts other contents that cover unlawful behavior in-game.

That sounds like a lawsuit that Steam would almost surely not lose.



Around the Network
andyy2017 said:
Azzanation said:
Steam is by far my favourite platform to game on. However there is too much of this trash on Steam, the library needs a major clean out. As for videogames causing issues for real life, its a shame of an excuse to remove games because they believe it affects lives.

Steam is a mess nowadays.. not only should they clean up but they should step up their quality control so games that they feel don't meet their guidelines/policy never make it in the first place. 

Its hard to shop on Steam when majority of the games are just clutter and some look like there made by 16 year olds.

Dare i say its one thing i do like over Steam and thats the QA on the Windows Store. One thing i do admire about Nintendo alot aswell. There QA is extreme but necessary.



Why would a CERO A equivilant game get banned?

I was against this kind of bullshit ever since earlier persona games got an M when in japan it B or 10+.



VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

Accuse someone to produce pedophile content is a slander. And besides that they previously accepted the content on their platform. So you can be sure they can find ground for a lawsuit. And if Steam wants to avoid exposition they'll settle. Besides that, the plentiff may show that Steam accepts other contents that cover unlawful behavior in-game.

That sounds like a lawsuit that Steam would almost surely not lose.

They would still be open for bad PR... even more when the game got classified as safe, and the lawyer can spin the message from the valve rep as calling the devs pedophiles.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
JWeinCom said:

How does that in any way warrant a lawsuit?

Accuse someone to produce pedophile content is a slander. And besides that they previously accepted the content on their platform. So you can be sure they can find ground for a lawsuit. And if Steam wants to avoid exposition they'll settle. Besides that, the plentiff may show that Steam accepts other contents that cover unlawful behavior in-game.

Slander is first of all spoken.  So, it's definitely not slander.  If anything it would be libel, but libel has to involve a public statement that damages someone's reputation.  It doesn't apply to a private correspondence.  Who the hell was Valve defaming the developer to.  Themselves?

The developer is the one that publicized the comments.  If they truly thought the comments would be damaging to their reputation, then they would have... you know, not publicized them.  

Not to mention the statement would have to be proven false.  And Valve's opinion is certainly reasonable.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 21 December 2017

Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
DonFerrari said:

Accuse someone to produce pedophile content is a slander. And besides that they previously accepted the content on their platform. So you can be sure they can find ground for a lawsuit. And if Steam wants to avoid exposition they'll settle. Besides that, the plentiff may show that Steam accepts other contents that cover unlawful behavior in-game.

Slander is first of all spoken.  So, it's definitely not slander.  If anything it would be libel, but libel has to involve a public statement that damages someone's reputation.  It doesn't apply to a private correspondence.  Who the hell was Valve defaming the developer to.  Themselves?

The developer is the one that publicized the comments.  If they truly thought the comments would be damaging to their reputation, then they would have... you know, not publicized them.  

Not to mention the statement would have to be proven false.  And Valve's opinion is certainly reasonable.

Not sure if you remember the cases of private conversations in USA that were taped and aired and still got the speakers to face judicial issues.

Prove that Valve statement is false? How and why would the dev prove it wasn't someone from Valve that made? And no, it isn't reasonable, unless you are in any position to claim this game is massively or marjorily consumed by pedophiles.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
JWeinCom said:

Slander is first of all spoken.  So, it's definitely not slander.  If anything it would be libel, but libel has to involve a public statement that damages someone's reputation.  It doesn't apply to a private correspondence.  Who the hell was Valve defaming the developer to.  Themselves?

The developer is the one that publicized the comments.  If they truly thought the comments would be damaging to their reputation, then they would have... you know, not publicized them.  

Not to mention the statement would have to be proven false.  And Valve's opinion is certainly reasonable.

Not sure if you remember the cases of private conversations in USA that were taped and aired and still got the speakers to face judicial issues.

Prove that Valve statement is false? How and why would the dev prove it wasn't someone from Valve that made? And no, it isn't reasonable, unless you are in any position to claim this game is massively or marjorily consumed by pedophiles.

No, I don't remember a case where someone was accused of libel for statements that they made in private which the defendant then chose to publicize.  Because libel is by definition defaming in a public forum.  If the defendant chose to publicize those statements, that would negate any libel charges because if the defendant thought the statements would be injurious to their business, they wouldn't publicize them

.  Please show me some instance of anything like that happening.  Something specifically related to slander or libel, where the defendant chose to release the statements in question.



DonFerrari said:
JWeinCom said:

Slander is first of all spoken.  So, it's definitely not slander.  If anything it would be libel, but libel has to involve a public statement that damages someone's reputation.  It doesn't apply to a private correspondence.  Who the hell was Valve defaming the developer to.  Themselves?

The developer is the one that publicized the comments.  If they truly thought the comments would be damaging to their reputation, then they would have... you know, not publicized them.  

Not to mention the statement would have to be proven false.  And Valve's opinion is certainly reasonable.

Not sure if you remember the cases of private conversations in USA that were taped and aired and still got the speakers to face judicial issues.

Prove that Valve statement is false? How and why would the dev prove it wasn't someone from Valve that made? And no, it isn't reasonable, unless you are in any position to claim this game is massively or marjorily consumed by pedophiles.

Even if every person who plays this game is a pedophile, that doesn't make the game itself problematic or even unlawful.

Last time I checked, being a pedophile isn't against any law either.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.