JWeinCom said:
No, censorship when you are actually forced to change content. Nintendo is a company whose objective is to sell games. If they feel like they could sell more games by changing the content, that's just a marketing decision. Unless Nintendo is actually being compelled to change the content, as in they literally are not allowed to publish it as they wish, it's not censorship. |
In this case, NOA members are dictated that content made by a IS team is unsuitable for the market out of fear of backlash. They're censoring IS's game by removing content that was apart of the game. You don't need a government banning something for it to be censorship. You can find several definitions of self-censorship and this fits the bill.
I'm not even saying that NOA was particularly wrong in this case, but it's still censorship.
