That's good, I hate getting painful erections while playing video games.

I think its kinda funny theyre trying to make entertainment like games and movies less sexual, yet its easier than ever to find videos of girls getting fucked and fisted in every hole. Im just not sure what the goal is. The same audience playing games is also watching porn. Its like there is a fear of these things mixing, a dangerous alliance.

Ah, Hiku, i just remember about DMC5, here is what people on Resetera and Neogaf thought: "Devil May Cry 5 wasn't hentai though and that had its nudity censored for a scene that was acceptable on every other platform. It was so embarrassing that Sony had to go back and remove the censorship after people complained. Is that going to be the standard going forward with every game that has the mildest of nudity?
What's even worse is their hypocritical double standards against Japanese developers. They never dare to censor big western games (they were totally fine with the strippers in Metro Exodus to have their full breasts out in suggestive poses) yet all hell breaked loose when a Japanese developer like Capcom dared to show a naked butt in a scene that had nothing to do with sex."

"in the context of physical makeup, they are the exact same thing" Lol, no they're not. Straight men do not sexualise other straight men, so they're idealised version is not necessarily based on sexualisation. When Gearbox decided it wanted its characters to be grizzly boxes of meat in the early Gears entry, I promise you no one was sexualising those characters and they were not created to be sexualised. And often sexes misinterpret the desires of the opposite sex. What woman might idealise may not align with mens desires i.e tons of makeup

And yes, men and woman typically depict themselves different and its ok for games to reflect this, i.e the female characters wearing makeup, dresses etc. But if you can't acknowledge the extreme of this presented in SF5 then I don't think its even worth having a convo with you tbh. What you're inherently saying is that its ok ultra sexualise the female characters (as in SF) because they do it to themselves in real life; the simple answer to this question is: 

How would a predominantly female team design their rooster of female characters?

And by "more varied body types" I mean athletic body types, but maybe all you see is "tall" and "muscular" bodies, which just reinforces my point about the straight male gaze which is why you think the presentation of Ryu and Cammy are equivalents.

"Being shirtless is not nudity?". Again you show you lack understanding of sexualisation, Ryu shirtless because he's in his karate gear is not the same as him wearing an open blazer with a trouser line dangerously close to his pelvis or randomly exposing his abs in an outfit where it doesn't make sense, i.e its purely there to titulate. Every one of these images is more sexualised in spite of them expressing less or equivalent levels of skin than a random shirtless male in karate gear.

Underage sexual stuff is illegal. Sony doesn't need an internal policy for illegal stuff. Yet they do. For instance the german USK gave Gal Guns 2 no rating (which basically means it will not be distributed), while Nekopara Vol 1 was rated 16 (not even the highest rating which would be 18) and released uncensored on Switch, while Sony decided to ask for changes. So clearly, Sony is beyond underage stuff here.

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.

Did anyone get to the bottom of that or are we just assuming its Sony? Other platforms were also censored in equally weird places. I mean butts are allowed in PG-13, I struggle to see how this would be out of sony's guidelines. And as you mentioned, they have no issue with Exodus. And as for the removing of the censorship, that only appilied to NA version, Europe is still censored. Anyway thats one of the weirder cases which leads me to believe that its Capcom trying their best to gauge the political landscape in each region and doing an aweful job at it.

Obviously you didn't read the entire thread before making such broad statements. Because the update doesn't in the least changes my concerns. I already gave an example for Sony deciding more than the public body making such decisions for my country, the USK. Based on which rules did Sony decide? We don't know. It is quite possible they don't even have a fixed set of rules but decide on a whim.

We have a public body deciding already on what the defenders of Sony here in this thread assume Sony is doing. But the public body has transparent rules, transparent decision that can be challenged in a court of law, a general accountability. All of this lacks this internal process at Sony. So nobody else has concerns if a multinational company makes decision the public should make?

So yes, everyone thinking this through should have a problem with this!

If they feel that the public body isn't strict enough on under-aged depictions then they can choose to control that on their platform if they wish to. They aren't halting the producting of the game, they can't do that. It just means you gotta go somewhere else to play it. 

And that, children, is the day when Medisti stopped buying Sony products. This is why rating boards exist. It really bothers me when companies from one culture try to enforce their views onto another.

If only companies built in software filters into their devices, like clear at and vidangel do for movies/shows, then gamers could game the way they want to and see/hear what they want to as well.