Quantcast
Sony to crack down on sexually explicit games |Update: Specifically Japanese games containing underage characters

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony to crack down on sexually explicit games |Update: Specifically Japanese games containing underage characters

o_O.Q said:
Ganoncrotch said:

A neckbeard is a derogatory term for a gamer, it's a negative term used by people who do not participate in the media being discussed in an attempt to make the enjoyers of said media appear to be unkept and not clean shaven.

This whole thing is the same as 5 years ago when it initially blew up badly, you have people who have never and will never buy games trying to dictate what they should play like for those who do play them, I think of it like me and the Twilight series of movies, they depict violence and abuse against the female protagonist and I don't get why they exist or have the fandom, but there is a large audience of bean flickers who love the way Edward keeps his lady in check so the movies made a ton of cash. Good on the studio imo for creating a product that sells and people wanted, regardless of the content, there was a demand and the studio fulfilled it. That's how consumerism works.

ah ok fair enough, sounds like when "virgin" gets thrown around to silence opposition to some of the cancerous elements of ideologies like feminism

aye pretty much, it's like the person saying their point wants to appear level headed but starts a convo off with an attempt at a low blow, same as suggesting someone with a different political view as you would have to be a snowflake. Sad name calling and nothing more, when I see someone having to resort to it to prove a point I normally just tune out because the point couldn't stand up on its own without the jab.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Around the Network
ArchangelMadzz said:
That's a very important update.

This entire thread is an example of our age of outrage before facts.

No one should have a problem with this.

appreciate you letting us know what we can and cannot raise our concerns over the entertainment we are fans over.

I hope you're aware of using "this entire thread" and then adding this post to the thread.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

So my question to those sticking up for the censorship is this.

If covering a butt or censoring underage girls is the right thing to do, than should we just not allow devs to make those games in the first place?

Whats the point of only censoring 1 out of 5 versions of a game? You dont think the child will simply get the Game on something else like Steam which has no morals when it comes to releasing games.

Honestly i think its rather stupid to censor a game. Whats the difference with a show like Sailor Moon which is available to everyone and thats about 14 year old girls over sexualized in mini skirts and mature adult bodies.. oh lets not forget the semi nude scenes of there transformations and all the upskirts in the entire show.
Did Sailor Moon harm any kids growing up?

Last edited by Azzanation - on 19 April 2019

Immersiveunreality said:

Im all for freedom of speech and creative freedom, im mostly amongst the defenders of those two but there is still a limit. For freedom of speech that limit is when it crosses into plain hate speech that has a purpose to invoke harm onto others and for creative freedom i would say the limit is crossed when it moves into sexualising underage women(in this case).

Our rating board in germany is pretty strict and believe me sexualization of underage girls is not tolerated here in germany, still they had no issue rating some games that were censored in the PS4 version but not others. It's not an issue about underage girls in sexualized context, it is an issue about applying a conservative morale to everyone.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Azzanation said:

So my question to those sticking up for the censorship is this.

If covering a butt or censoring underage girls is the right thing to do, than should we just not allow devs to make those games in the first place?

Whats the point of only censoring 1 out of 5 versions of a game? You dont think the child will simply get the Game on something else like Steam which has no morals when it comes to releasing games.

Agreed. If people think that is unacceptable, they should push to outlaw it, not applauding arbitrary decisions internally in a company.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

I'm still waiting for that valid comparison.

so clarify this for me, male disposability is not a concern for you as a male feminist ally?

with regards to "sexualisation"(a word that means nothing) the way the discourse on that is framed within the social justice context is so stupid that i suppose its pointless for me to try to discuss that.

The concept of male expendability is a homogenic one.  Men applied them to ourselves.  We are not deemed expendable by the actions or directions of women.

Women are not generally responsible for creating or designing underage looking women in sexualized scenarios.

And yes, sexualization has meaning.  How can you say it means nothing? 

o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

1). Do a large percentage of the male population consider those as negative depictions of men?

2). I think you missed my sarcasm.

"Do a large percentage of the male population consider those as negative depictions of men?"

can you give some examples of the negative depictions of females you are referring to?

Underage-looking women in sexual scenarios.  Women depicted oversexualized without any relation to a given situation (e.g. a male soldier will be dressed for combat while a female soldier will be dressed for...certainly not combat).

LivingMetal said:
SpokenTruth said:

Slavery wasn't a problem before so it shouldn't not be a problem now.  Right?

Or should we not mature as a society?

1). Are you saying slavery was never a problem?  2). Are you saying character depicted in ways that do not favor your personal criteria is slavery?  I express my maturity by giving people freedom of choice, me being tolerant of that choice, and me working on common grounds while agreeing to disagree to work to a general greater resolution.  3). I don't get self-righteous in the name of "maturity."

1). For many societies in the past, they didn't consider it a problem.  It wasn't morally wrong to them.  We obviously know better now.  We have matured as a society.

2). Oh, no.  Not at all.  There is not correlation I'm trying to draw between the two other than things in the past that were morally acceptable are later recognized as wrong or even reprehensible.

3). You are confusing personal maturity with social maturity.  What is acceptable and moral in any given society is a wide range individually but as a whole group...that's the social morality, social norms and customs. See point 1 above.

LivingMetal said:
SpokenTruth said:

No, I'm saying societal norms, customs and acceptability change over time.  LivingMetal claimed this wasn't an issue in the past and therefore should not be an issue now.  And I pointed out how that kind of reasoning is faulty.   Did you even read his post?

Did YOU read my post?  This type of reasoning is NOT faulty when applied to something that is NOT faulty to begin with, creative freedom and consumer choice.  And WHO are you to apply you're preferences of the acceptance of certain societal norms and customs on everyone else?  That's FAULTY.

I never said "creative freedom and consumer choice" were faulty.  I said that "just because something in the past was acceptable means it should be acceptable today" is faulty. 

And it's not me pushing my preferences on anyone.  Sony isn't changing policy because I told them to.  It's society doing that. Societies change over time. What was once acceptable can become unacceptable - and vice versa.  In fact, I'd say far more things have been acceptable over the years than unacceptable.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Good. While I've purchased two senran Kagura games and there isn't much detail, it's hard to deny what their purpose was. I buy any game with a sexy female in it and the two I bought (Estival Vs and Peach Beach Splash) were no exception. I probably logged in less than an hour with each. They were just too much and no matter what the game says, those characters were kids.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

It is only a problem if you only play on Sony consoles. I pick multiplats for pc and only have a Sony console for exclusives. So this shit won't affect me.



shikamaru317 said:
twintail said:

These are digital characters so actual age is irrelevant. Marie Rose might be 18 according to Tecmo but I think its easily arguable that she looks younger. The stuff taken out is basically creep territory. If you have an issue with not being able to get an upskirt glimpse then sure it is annoying.

I could show you pictures of adult women with a similar body type to Marie Rose. Alicia Vikander for one, and she is 30. Petite does not equal young. 

Ailcia Vikander doesn't look underage. I never referenced Marie Rose as petite. So, I stand by my previous comment. 

HoangNhatAnh said:

Hiku said:

??
The mistake would be the implementation of the lense flare effect. Not the removal of it.
The reason it has not yet been removed from EU/AU is possibly due to the process of getting the patch approved in multiple different countries with different laws and regulations. That can take time.

You think that not only did Sony ask Capcom to censor an extra butt when Capcom were coincidentally already planning on censoring one. But Sony then backtracked on this for the first time due to backlash, but then didn't do it in Europe?

And how does the fact that the patch hasn't been implemented in Europe yet mean that this is all Sony's doing?
What is your reasoning behind that?

Then why that scene was censored on ps4 only? And then a lot people complained and only US PS4 ver was removed, wow, facepalm. 

Europe is Sony land, majority of PS fans there will eat anything from Sony and ps4 while in US, Sony have to compete with Xbox and partly 

You do realise that the Sony policy affects all regions including Japan? You do realise that DMC5 was not 'censored' in Japan?

So, if Sony's policy includes Japan but Japan didn't get censored, how do you know it was Sony and not a Capcom mishap?



SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

so clarify this for me, male disposability is not a concern for you as a male feminist ally?

with regards to "sexualisation"(a word that means nothing) the way the discourse on that is framed within the social justice context is so stupid that i suppose its pointless for me to try to discuss that.

The concept of male expendability is a homogenic one.  Men applied them to ourselves.  We are not deemed expendable by the actions or directions of women.

Women are not generally responsible for creating or designing underage looking women in sexualized scenarios.

And yes, sexualization has meaning.  How can you say it means nothing? 

o_O.Q said:

"Do a large percentage of the male population consider those as negative depictions of men?"

can you give some examples of the negative depictions of females you are referring to?

Underage-looking women in sexual scenarios.  Women depicted oversexualized without any relation to a given situation (e.g. a male soldier will be dressed for combat while a female soldier will be dressed for...certainly not combat).

LivingMetal said:

1). Are you saying slavery was never a problem?  2). Are you saying character depicted in ways that do not favor your personal criteria is slavery?  I express my maturity by giving people freedom of choice, me being tolerant of that choice, and me working on common grounds while agreeing to disagree to work to a general greater resolution.  3). I don't get self-righteous in the name of "maturity."

1). For many societies in the past, they didn't consider it a problem.  It wasn't morally wrong to them.  We obviously know better now.  We have matured as a society.

2). Oh, no.  Not at all.  There is not correlation I'm trying to draw between the two other than things in the past that were morally acceptable are later recognized as wrong or even reprehensible.

3). You are confusing personal maturity with social maturity.  What is acceptable and moral in any given society is a wide range individually but as a whole group...that's the social morality, social norms and customs. See point 1 above.

LivingMetal said:

Did YOU read my post?  This type of reasoning is NOT faulty when applied to something that is NOT faulty to begin with, creative freedom and consumer choice.  And WHO are you to apply you're preferences of the acceptance of certain societal norms and customs on everyone else?  That's FAULTY.

I never said "creative freedom and consumer choice" were faulty.  I said that "just because something in the past was acceptable means it should be acceptable today" is faulty. 

And it's not me pushing my preferences on anyone.  Sony isn't changing policy because I told them to.  It's society doing that. Societies change over time. What was once acceptable can become unacceptable - and vice versa.  In fact, I'd say far more things have been acceptable over the years than unacceptable.

"The concept of male expendability is a homogenic one.  Men applied them to ourselves.  We are not deemed expendable by the actions or directions of women."

so in countries where women have been queens or some other type of political leader where as has been consistent throughout history the men were seen as more disposable it was still the fault of men even though they didn't have the power?

you understand that this type of denial of the agency of women does nothing to help them right? i'm sure you think the opposite but you are just making things harder for women when you deny their contributions to structuring society especially their negative contributions because obviously if we can't discuss them then nothing can be done about them

"Women are not generally responsible for creating or designing underage looking women in sexualized scenarios."

i didn't make this argument so i have nothing to say on it

"And yes, sexualization has meaning."

it does not... and to demonstrate that it does not is rather easy...

take a naked woman and put her in front of a gay man, since he's gay he won't be stimulated by her

ok now instead take a blind man and put the same woman in front of him... still no effect right?

ok finally take a heterosexual man and place the same woman in front of him, well then there may be a response but not necessarily, depending on what features the man is attracted to in women he may or may not be stimulated

the point here is that sexual desire is subjective... which means that you can't apply an objective standard to it

to elaborate further i could ask you to list examples of what you consider to be instances of sexualisation like lets say cleavage and i could list examples of not just gay or blind men but heterosexual men that would not find that attractive

the human body is just an object, it is you perceiving it as sexual due to whatever biases you have and using that as a tool

"Women depicted oversexualized without any relation to a given situation 

am i to understand that oversexualised refers to not being covered? why do you think women should be covered?

"(e.g. a male soldier will be dressed for combat while a female soldier will be dressed for...certainly not combat).""

sounds pretty much like the variation in dress that we see in real life between men and women - men go to work in suits while women where high heels, makeup etc etc etc(not that i think that is a problem)

do you think then that people should all be forced to wear suits as a uniform at work in real life then?