And yet 25 years ago mortal combat was taboo.

I know no one would've cared. That was my point. He was saying no one would've cared about this 10-15 years ago and I was using my example as a comparison of why that may be true but it doesn't lessen the severity of the situation.

Just because something exists, doesn't mean it has the right to exist. Hate crimes are never okay.

Its still largely a game of Microsoft trying to pull all of the strings with indie devs. They set up a system that has them deciding what is best for these small companies and has them trying to make decisions that they don't really have the right to make. While the parity clause is not a hard rule, it is still a hoop that MS is making indie devs jump through. I have heard "we aren't releasing on Xbox because of [reason]" enough times to believe that these hoops really aren't helping anybody. It seems that MS has lightened up though, but I admit I haven't been keeping close tabs on the issue.

It all depends on the location really. Like seriously all of the crimes you have all mentioned are still legal in some countries or result in a slap on the wrist. 

Of course I'm just referring to the first world, as most other nations have such crimes that are unspeakable and go unnoticed. 

Microsoft don't tell Indies what to develop or interfere with the develepment process. We're talking about Indie quality control here, not Parity Clause.

MS Studios used to publish their games for X360 and the devs afterwards could just re-release their games on their own on Steam.

It was nothing special, just a quality check to make sure with didn't get messed up games.

And for the devs that said they don't release their games on X1, I'm pretty sure they won't be missed. Indies mostly, are complementary software, not killer apps.

MS during X360 era, had a small games program (Arcades) that rivaled Steam. That was when small games and Indies didn't count towards list warz.

I'm neutral on this. It could be a game about killing straight people or republicans/democrats. If someone wants to play games like this for whatever reason, by all means. I just don't really care.

I'm getting confused at what exactly you are trying to say now.

You said that what we are asking for from Steam is what everybody attacked MS for. That isn't really true imo. I've already explained why.

During the X360 heyday on the Arcade Games front, MS required Indie developers to have a publisher as a form of quality control.

Valve doesn't do that and their Greenlight program is apparently a facade.

Well to be honest, that kinda a shitty way of getting there. Quality control should involve some sort of intelligent process and criteria paired with people actually playing the games, not a simple publisher check. That largely works to restrict indie developers as a very slapdash solution. Nintendo used to have a quality control policy which required the dev to have a devoted office space, which became problematic for some smaller devs for obvious reasons, so they got rid of that program, because it was the wrong solution to the problem.

It is also worth noting that the problem is much different on consoles than on Steam. Steam has a barrier of entry of 100$ to enter greenlight, whereas console development takes significantly more money. Additionally, you typically have some sort of entity checking the game to make sure that it at least works and meets certain criteria (simple things like a menu or a dynamic loading screen).

Basically the barrier for entry is higher on consoles and the quality check is also slightly higher than on Steam. Not saying these are perfect solutions, just that these are radically different ecosystems and as such, different solutions may be necessary.