Hacker News Reader

I hate it when companies do this, and they've been doing it a lot recently. I think my irritation comes from the fact that they're not doing it to make their customers happier with their product; they're doing it to avoid a storm of controversy from people who in large part aren't their customers.

They have the right to do it, I understand it, and I might do the same in their place, because who wants a twitterstorm against their new product? But it's still annoying.

In the case of DOA6, it was before the alleged Sony "censorship" rumors of recent years. So keep that in mind, DOA6 was released a couple of years ago.

The DOA6 example is almost entirely a case where Koei Tecmo wanted to be taken "more seriously" as an eSports game.

Now maybe you can argue that "eSports players don't play Dead or Alive", and only "casual players looking for sexiness play Dead or Alive". But... I know that's not true either. Some of my friends who were into fighting games were "serious" about their Dead or Alive combos / practice regiments / matchups / etc. etc. There are plenty of serious players in that group.

On the one hand: you got the "casuals" who pay $1000 for hundreds of costumes (Dead or Alive 5 was very famous for its DLC costumes). "eSports" players didn't do this, because they were more focused on the combo practice rather than playing dress-up with these characters. (In contrast, the players who did find the characters sexy, probably did play "dress up" more often and were into buying these costume packs).

Frankly: its not a clear cut case. I could very well see Koei Tecmo wanting to appeal to the eSports players, hoping that it'd propel their game to newer heights in the "serious" eSports ring (ex: Marvel vs Capcom 3 / Street Fighter 4). Furthermore, the "casual" audience argued that they deserved more influence than the eSport ambitions BECAUSE they spent all of this money on DLC costumes with no in-game effect aside from "playing dress up".

---------

In contrast, Bandai's "Soul Calibur" series never really had this issue. Soul Calibur can remain "sexy costume / dressup" for casuals, because Bandai's "serious" esports game was Tekken. (And while Soul Calibur's "serious" players definitely held side tournaments, they were always seen as 2nd class citizens compared to Tekken at the eSports events).

---------

Nintendo's "Smash Ultimate" example is kinda funny, because its clear that Nintendo doesn't really want Smash Ultimate to be an eSports title (despite it taking up a big eSports following). Nintendo's eSports ambitions are Pokken Tournament (Pokemon fighting game) and Splatoon.

Despite not wanting to be an eSports title, Nintendo clearly is aiming the game at younger audiences, so various characters are a bit more covered up in Smash Ultimate (ex: Bayonetta, Pyra, etc. etc.)

It might be tiring but it is also important.

Believe or not, whatever we (people, collectively) decide to allow or disallow is very likely going to profoundly affect shape of freedom of expression for future generations.

Here's my problem.

If a developer (lets say, Koei Tecmo games), decides to make a video game (such as Dead or Alive 6) slightly less sexy than a previous video game (such as Dead or Alive 5), is that "censorship" ??

Or is this a *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT* discussion, and the "censorship" trolls are just trying to cause outrage in a completely unrelated subject matter?

Ditto with Nintendo and their treatment of Pyra & Mythra in Xenogears vs Smash Ultimate. Its like Smash Ultimate is aimed at a younger audience, so Nintendo wanted those characters to have slightly less sex appeal in Smash Ultimate, while having slightly more sex appeal in Xenogears.

So yelling "censorship" at the top of your lungs because you don't like Pyra's tights in Smash Ultimate is just... counterproductive. (For those unaware: The original character design doesn't have tights, so she shows a bit more thigh in Xenogears. So the controversy is whether or not adding the tights to Smash Ultimate is "censorship").

--------

That's the thing about "censorship". Its outrage trolling these days. You yell censorship not to make a point or to move the discussion forward. You yell it to close off the discussion and derail it. Its a troll move, not really about discussing underlying issues.

No, making your game slightly less sexy is not censorship if it was your own choice.

If you decide not to say something, this is not impinging on your freedom of speech, it is you using your freedom to make that decision. Some people call this self-censorship which I do not count as censorship.

When I decide not to talk politics at the office or at home party that might be self-censorship but in reality is my own choice.

Yes, censoring trolls that say vaccines are harmful is still censorship, regardless of how sure you feel about being right.

Understand that any idea had to start at some point with a single person or small number of people. Women demanding their right to vote, it had to start somewhere. It also means everybody else was of another opinion.

Suppressing speech, beliefs, just because you don't agree with them risks to cut those movements before they have ability to gain traction and in effect slow human progress.

Self-censorship is censorship. If you know stating some position (I support candidate X) is going to result in being harassed, death threats or other injury and you choose to not engage in speech, that is still being censored.

You made decision to not get involved in the conflict. That's not censorship.

Have others been allowed to state that position? Has some body tried to suppress that speech? If yes, then they (but not you) have been subject to censorship.

I was trying to remember the name for this when I wrote the original comment, and now I recall it.

A chilling effect.

It started as a legal concept but it applies to censorship as well. It's sufficient to count as censorship if you simply punish legal speech sufficiently that the populace self-censors.

[1]: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/897/chilling-effect

Intimidation is an effective form of censoring.

Speech has consequences otherwise it wouldn't be worth speaking. Whether or not you want to accept those consequences is not censorship.

Yeah. People forget free speech does not mean consequence-free speech.

> Whether or not you want to accept those consequences is not censorship

So if whenever someone expresses a certain opinion, they received mass amounts of threats against their personal well being, by non-government actors, you would not say that this speech has been chilled/censored?

Are you aware of the concept of how certain actions (such as mass threats) can have a chilling effect on speech?

If you don't want to speak because of the consequences, that is not censorship. And threats of violence are already against the law.

Anything other than threats of violence is someone else's free speech.

> And threats of violence are already against the law

But.... These types of things also cause a chilling effect on other people's speech right?

Do you understand how it is possible to stop large amounts of people from engaging in speech, if non-government actors make threats against their well being?

Do you understand this concept of how censorship can be done by chilling speech through the process of violent threats, even by non-government actors?

> because of the consequences

What if those consequences are violent threats (or even attacks!), by non-government actors, on you and your family?

You really would not call that censorship, if no-one was willing to engage in certain speech, due to these violent threats by non-government actors?

It's chilling but it's not censorship. You're not prevented from speaking, you just choose not too.

Extremely famous people have changed the world through their speech and died for it. They should not have died but they were also explicitly not censored.

You're just arguing over the meaning of words. I agree with you that threats of violence over speech is awful. And thankfully it is against the law, as it should be.

But that's also the most extreme -- we're mostly arguing about people who don't feel like they should have to answer for their speech rather than being violently threatened.

> You're not prevented from speaking, you just choose not too.

That a weird definition of censorship.

Imagine if someone were to say "You aren't being censored. The government is just threatened to kill you, for your speech, after you say it. You can say whatever you want, and it won't be stopped. You will just suffer consequences (such as when the government kills you), afterwords for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences!"

I think that basically everyone would call the situation that I just described, as censorship.

The situation of government death squads, killing people for their speech, is probably the most clear example of censorship that I could think of, even if they do it, after the fact.

I am not sure what could possibly even qualify as censorship, if the example I gave doesn't count.

So I am not sure why you are basically saying that violent threats, that discourage speech, are not an example of censorship.

> If a developer (lets say, Koei Tecmo games), decides to make a video game (such as Dead or Alive 6) slightly less sexy than a previous video game (such as Dead or Alive 5), is that "censorship" ??

Is it in all releases or just the US and European releases? I remember people complaining that just the Western releases of some games were censored.

Since games are basically global these days (since the Japanese version must work with the European version and must work with the USA version for online play), its a blanket decision that applies globally.

If it's just cosmetic changes then not really. People can mod their copies, use their own models and remain compatible with others.

edit: I'm rate limited, responding here:

I just pointed out that versions don't have to be the same to play online. I remember people complaining that the releases were different, so I'm just asking.

The typical gamer can't really mod games on modern consoles like XBox Series X or PS5.

Sure, a dedicated fan can do that. But when you consider the outrage is from typical people (who do not have the technical skill to implement these mods), then it makes more sense.

Except it is censorship and it's happening because a vocal minority of Western audiences demanded it.

https://nichegamer.com/2018/10/27/new-sony-censorship-policy...

Possibly. But I think most of us would rather pick another hill to die on than deciding that removing visible cleavage on a hyper-sexualized 13 year-old is "censorship".[0]

[0] https://kotaku.com/xenoblade-chronicles-xs-director-on-local...

You are not forced to comment on a HN post dedicating to censoring comments if you "would rather pick another hill to die on".

No Japanese creator is going to reply "well, I would rather that the company that pays my salary not censor me", unless they have such star power that they know they can say this with no repercussions, so I'm skeptical of such claims.

Not to mention that Japanese creators often don't know much about a problem other than what the company tells them. If Nintendo tells them "we need to do this or people in the West won't buy it," the creator will believe them, and say that they don't mind the censorship because it's necessary, even if Nintendo is lying through their teeth when they say that.

I think the complaint of "censorship" might have some basis if the reason why the company changed the character models is to comply with obscenity laws in the most conservative country in which that particular game will be distributed.

There is a case to be made that in a world where creators sell their content globally, conservative regions with a lot of potential customers might influence content that ends up also being sold in liberal regions. This might not be censorship, exactly, but it is an annoying side-effect of a globalized information economy. Instead of the world opening up and becoming more liberal, it might actually end up becoming more conservative, if transnational corporations decide that catering to the lowest common denominator is a more profitable route.

I suppose the workaround for consumers is the same as it is for movies - to avoid the content designed to appeal to the broadest audience, and seek out indie creators who are still willing to cater to a more local or specialized audience. In the mean time, I do think it's fair for consumers to advocate for generally more liberal themes in games, although I'm not sure the sexiness of an outfit is really the hill to die on.

What I find weird in our current status quo is how "sex work" and having an OnlyFans account is considered empowering, but a game about fictional characters like DOA is considered sexist and misogynist.

I never played it, so I might be wrong, but isn't that why people play DOA in the first place? To see sexy women? So how's that trolling?

> I never played it, so I might be wrong, but isn't that why people play DOA in the first place? To see sexy women? So how's that trolling?

There's a fair number of players who were hoping that DOA would become an esport: akin to Marvel vs Capcom 3, Street Fighter 4, or Smash Ultimate.

There's a discussion that must be had about DOA's excessive "sexiness" and whether or not that is hurting it from becoming a mainstream esports game. DOA 6 focused on the "cinematography", which caused an outrage because their fans wanted more emphasis on the sex-appeal (which was absolutely the focus of DOA2 through DOA5: "boob physics" was front and center in a lot of marketing)

Now don't get me wrong, the discussion should be had. But... this isn't about censorship at all. This discussion ultimately comes down to the skirt length and bust size of Kasumi / Marie Rose (and other characters). To derail the discussion by yelling "censorship" is unnecessary, and unhelpful hyperbole.

>What I find weird in our current status quo is how "sex work" and having an OnlyFans account is considered empowering, but a game about fictional characters like DOA is considered sexist and misogynist.

The difference is consent. A person is free to objectify themselves and doing so can be empowering. A person should be extremely cautious about creating fiction to objectify a group of people to which the author does not belong as this can be exploitative and have societal repercussions.

I know next to nothing about the developers for the DOA franchise, but I am guessing there would be less controversy if the studio had a larger female presence.

What consent? We're talking about fictional characters here.

Is Dwarf Fortress an immoral game, because the authors are not a part of groups like dwarfs, elves and goblins? And some in-game events may occur without the consent of those characters?

edit: Got rate limited for some reason and can no longer respond, so I'm just going to edit this post:

What does the "consent from the group" even mean? Do you have to make a poll, write to the CEO of Women™ or something? Seriously. Can I even include women if I'm making an amateur video game as a one-man effort (no pun intended), and I myself am not a woman?

And for dragontamer, I guess you got your answer. I don't personally care about video games at all, but some people believe this is immoral and rape-like (no consent), so it's not surprising to me that someone calls it censorship and points out the parallels to back when people tried to censor violence in video games and whatnot.

edit2:

> You are free to make whatever game you want. The public is free to respond to your game however they want. You aren't going to get many complaints if you "even include women". If you objectify those women, you might get met with those complaints. If you were a women objectify women, you can at least claim that your are taking control of the objectification. That is viewed as a valid excuse by a lot of people much like how I mentioned people in a minority group are generally allowed to make jokes at that groups expense.

So I should take it as roughly "the consent from the group means that the group isn't going to cancel you"? But if that's the case then why is it called "consent"? Isn't the entire point of consent to ask before you take action? It's like saying "I'm going to force you to have sex with me, if you don't go to the police then it means you consented to it". And from my understanding that's literally what rape culture is.

Consent from the group being objectified. It is the same reason that a person who belongs to a specific minority group is usually given free reign to tell jokes about that group while a person outside that minority isn't. It doesn't matter that the character in the joke isn't a real person.

Its pretty clear that all the women whose breasts were measured for DOA's breast physics consented to these effecs.

Consent certainly isn't the issue here. This is 100% a "Sexiness" issue. DOA is a "sexy" game, including breast physics and precise measurements of "bounciness" in skimpy costumes.

The discussion the DOA community needs is about how such "sex appeal" is relatively niche, and is a "turnoff" to some gamers. DOA6, which was striving for esports / mainstream acceptance is finding itself between a rock and a hard place.

DOA has a history of being "that sexy game", which people don't want to associate with in public. On the other hand, to make a change in the marketing is somewhat of a betrayal to the fans who have supported DOA over the past few decades.

---------

The underlying issue gets ignored because of 'censorship' worries. A game that markets itself with this kind of sexiness front-and-center cannot really become mainstream. Its too perverted for people to want to associate with in public.

Not all consent is created equal. Consent from people who are at a power disparity is not the same as consent from people leading the project. The women having their breasts measured aren't exactly in a position to impact meaningful change on this video game franchise.

It reminds me how Harvey Weinstein used to demand that women shoot nude scenes in his movies. Many women agreed to shoot those scenes in an attempt to help their career. That might technically be consent, but the power imbalance in the situation makes it at least partially coerced consent. I'm not saying the people developing DOA are monsters on the order of Weinstein, but the women who have their breast measured are in a similar compromised position.

That sounds less coerced than bought. If so, the promised reward involved doesn't change what "consent" means, it only changes where breach of contract might occur.

A large economic or power disparity between the two may mean that there is not much difference between "coerced" and "bought".

It is just like someone running a sweatshop might be able to hire people for a couple dollars per day. The workers would be consenting to work at that price, but they are being coerced into it due to their own financial situation.

>What does the "consent from the group" even mean? Do you have to make a poll, write to the CEO of Women™ or something? Seriously. Can I even include women if I'm making an amateur video game as a one-man effort (no pun intended), and I myself am not a woman?

You are free to make whatever game you want. The public is free to respond to your game however they want. You aren't going to get many complaints if you "even include women". If you objectify those women, you might get met with those complaints. If you were a women objectify women, you can at least claim that your are taking control of the objectification. That is viewed as a valid excuse by a lot of people much like how I mentioned people in a minority group are generally allowed to make jokes at that groups expense.

I realize you're a stranger to this discussion. But you're coming in from the completely wrong angle here.

The "controversy" of note is the group who are threatening boycotts unless more sexy costumes are added to Dead or Alive 6. They do this because they think that Sony is censoring the Dead or Alive 6 series (and other games). I'm grossly simplifying things here but... that's the gist.

This discussion of objectification and/or consent is... simply not a thing in the Dead or Alive discussions I'm aware of. I mean, that discussion is going on, but that's more "Hot Tub Meta" and "ASMR / Ear Licking" streams, and kinda different.

Is a grown woman allowed to dress up in a skimpy two piece bathing suit and then stream herself playing video games on Twitch? Even when consent is 100% clear (no one is forcing this streamer to do this. They want to partake in the hot tub meta), a large group of people decry the "objectification".

So to answer your general question:

> I know next to nothing about the developers for the DOA franchise, but I am guessing there would be less controversy if the studio had a larger female presence.

You're 100% wrong about this. There are plenty of examples inside of the video game community where adult women with 100% consent and 100% control over their creative abilities choose to be sexy, but this sexiness invites controversy.

Its definitely not about consent. Its not about worker treatment. The discussion is clearly about how much sexiness should be in video games (and surrounding media: such as "streamers" on Twitch).

>I realize you're a stranger to this discussion. But you're coming in from the completely wrong angle here.

You are right that I am not up on the current DOA controversy. I simply know the controversy that has existed around that franchise since basically its inception. That plus the other commenter's comparison to sex work led me to believe the complaints were coming from the other side of the issue. I'm apparently wrong on that, but either way we are still talking about the same issue. People in the past have complained that the game objectified women. The developers have tried to distance themselves from that and now the fans are crying censorship. There is still the same issue at the heart of it, just which side is complaining the loudest has flipped.

>You're 100% wrong about this. There are plenty of examples inside of the video game community where adult women with 100% consent and 100% control over their creative abilities choose to be sexy, but this sexiness invites controversy.

I didn't say there would be zero controversy, but there is definitely less controversy when someone objectifies a group of which they belong. That isn't limited to video games. That is true of basically all modern western culture.

I'm sure you already know this, but that is not censorship. By definition, censorship is done by a government or some other outside entity. In the case of video games, it's the companies themselves making these changes to make them more marketable.

TLDR: Capital G Gamers are idiots.

> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.

Censorship can be self imposed, eg Hollywood.

And please don't throw ad hominem attacks at groups of people. Not only are you incorrect but it's childish.

> By definition, censorship is done by a government or some other outside entity

That's not the definition of censorship - by definition, the video game maker in that case chose to self-censor. It's debatable whether or not that was a stupid decision or a wise decision, but there's no other word to describe it.