Valve pulls mass shooter game Hatred from Steam Greenlight

[Scorpus]

Valve rarely prevents a game from being published through Steam, but when the gruesome mass shooter game Hatred appeared on Steam Greenlight, the company felt it was necessary to intervene. Just hours after the game was launched on Greenlight, allowing gamers to vote for its inclusion in the main store, Valve pulled it.

Doug Lombardi, VP of Marketing at Valve, stated that "based on what we've seen on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam. As such we'll be taking it down." He didn't elaborate further on the reasons behind the decision.

But it doesn't take much guessing to figure out why Valve might want to distance themselves from Hatred. The game's developers, Polish studio Destructive Creations, describe their title as "a game about killing people", citing the antagonist's "deep-rooted hatred" as a motive for slaughtering innocent civilians and police officers in a self-proclaimed "genocide crusade".

The game's trailer depicts the antagonist running around the streets of a city, entering buildings just to mow down civilians with a range of weapons. The objective appears to be to kill as many people as possible.

Despite the game being pulled from Steam Greenlight, Destructive Creations are moving ahead with development, stating that "the whole situation only pushes us forward to go against any adversity and not to give up". After receiving over 13,000 upvotes on Greenlight before its removal, the developers see this is as "the best proof for us that there are diehard Hatred fans out there, waiting for this game to be released."

Hatred will still be released as planned in Q2 2015 on Windows, but it won't be available through Steam.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/59166-valve-pulls-mass-shooter-game-hatred-steam-greenlight.html

 

[Hyrax]

A bit surprising considering that the original Postal (which is on Steam) is about the same thing - psychotic killer who runs around and kills everyone. Not to mention Manhunt which is very graphic as well.

But their platform, their rules.

 

[UnknownSky]

Nothing I'll play although someone will.
I haven't been able to see a trailer, etc since I'm at work currently although it cannot be worse than gore/violance in games such as Dead Rising 3, Evil Within, etc.
I do agree that this sort of game will probably desensitize some seriously messed up teen and they'll go on a rampage of their own leading to more flak for the industry as a whole instead of cracking down on the developer who created the game in the first place. That's how it'll play out, not much else to say on the subject.

 

[UnknownSky]

Nothing I'll play although someone will.
I haven't been able to see a trailer, etc since I'm at work currently although it cannot be worse than gore/violance in games such as Dead Rising 3, Evil Within, etc.
I do agree that this sort of game will probably desensitize some seriously messed up teen and they'll go on a rampage of their own leading to more flak for the industry as a whole instead of cracking down on the developer who created the game in the first place. That's how it'll play out, not much else to say on the subject.

*violence

 

[cmbjive]

But I thought games didn't have negative influences on people.

And if you're going to have a standard at least be consistent.

 

[davislane1]

Nothing I'll play although someone will.
I haven't been able to see a trailer, etc since I'm at work currently although it cannot be worse than gore/violance in games such as Dead Rising 3, Evil Within, etc.
I do agree that this sort of game will probably desensitize some seriously messed up teen and they'll go on a rampage of their own leading to more flak for the industry as a whole instead of cracking down on the developer who created the game in the first place. That's how it'll play out, not much else to say on the subject.

I've seen the trailer. In my subjective opinion, it makes DR3 and TEW look like Mario Galaxy. First game that's ever provoked me to respond, "Yeah... That's a bit too far for me." Postal, at least psychologically, seems tame by comparison.

That said, the idea that this game is somehow going to drive some nutcase over the edge is hogwash.

 

[Guest]

A game can't force people to do these things in real life, or course, but at least this type of game can give ideas for some nutcase, just like certain tv programs, movies, etc. It's pretty difficult to prove with 100% certainty afterwards, but that's my opinion(and yeah, nothing new here)....

 

[davislane1]

A game can't force people to do these things in real life, or course, but at least this type of game can give ideas for some nutcase, just like certain tv programs, movies, etc. It's pretty difficult to prove with 100% certainty afterwards, but that's my opinion(and yeah, nothing new here)....

You need to follow your opinion to its logical end. If we're going to be worried about giving bad people ideas, it reasonably follows that any fiction or recitation of fact that is in any way violent is going to give bad people ideas. Thus, Hatred isn' the only title that should be pulled. Any game, book, documentary, movie, historical text, etc. that contains violent or nefarious acts should be removed from the general market place, to prevent giving bad people ideas.

People need to stop fretting over the possibility of influencing maniacs and pay more attention to the implications of their positions.

Edit:

[Judging by the responses, I either accidentally tossed this one into the stratosphere or some how drove it right into the center of the earth. Therefore, clarification is in order.

CONTEXT: A game is pulled from a marketplace because of its content.

Guest's opinion: A game can't force people to do these things in real life, or course, but at least this type of game can give ideas for some nutcase, just like certain tv programs, movies, etc.

My argument: Guest's opinion is poorly reasoned because the moral ground it is based upon leads to a ridiculous outcome if consistently applied within society:

Thus, Hatred isn' the only title that should be pulled. Any game, book, documentary, movie, historical text, etc. that contains violent or nefarious acts should be removed from the general market place, to prevent giving bad people ideas.

My opinion: Understand the implications of what you believe before using it to justify your or someone else's actions.

Somehow, this is seen by some as both incredibly daft and impractical.]

 

[Seventh Reign]

A game can't force people to do these things in real life, or course, but at least this type of game can give ideas for some nutcase, just like certain tv programs, movies, etc. It's pretty difficult to prove with 100% certainty afterwards, but that's my opinion(and yeah, nothing new here)....

You need to follow your opinion to its logical end. If we're going to be worried about giving bad people ideas, it reasonably follows that any fiction or recitation of fact that is in any way violent is going to give bad people ideas. Thus, Hatred isn' the only title that should be pulled. Any game, book, documentary, movie, historical text, etc. that contains violent or nefarious acts should be removed from the general market place, to prevent giving bad people ideas.

People need to stop fretting over the possibility of influencing maniacs and pay more attention to the implications of their positions.

Violent games do not make people violent. Violent people are going to be violent no matter what they see/play. If anything violent games are BETTER for kids. They provide an outlet to do things that they cant do in real life. A way to release the pressure.

 

[amstech]

Any game, book, documentary, movie, historical text, etc. that contains violent or nefarious acts should be removed from the general market place, to prevent giving bad people ideas.
.

This type of opinion/mentality is one of the MANY reasons our Country is in such poor shape. I am being 100% serious when I say this may be the dumbest thing I have read in 2014 on Techspot.
And before the forum police arrive and flip-out, I am using dumb to describe a comment and not to namecall or throw puns. Read and comprehend please.

 

[cmbjive]

A game can't force people to do these things in real life, or course, but at least this type of game can give ideas for some nutcase, just like certain tv programs, movies, etc. It's pretty difficult to prove with 100% certainty afterwards, but that's my opinion(and yeah, nothing new here)....

You need to follow your opinion to its logical end. If we're going to be worried about giving bad people ideas, it reasonably follows that any fiction or recitation of fact that is in any way violent is going to give bad people ideas. Thus, Hatred isn' the only title that should be pulled. Any game, book, documentary, movie, historical text, etc. that contains violent or nefarious acts should be removed from the general market place, to prevent giving bad people ideas.

People need to stop fretting over the possibility of influencing maniacs and pay more attention to the implications of their positions.

Violent games do not make people violent. Violent people are going to be violent no matter what they see/play. If anything violent games are BETTER for kids. They provide an outlet to do things that they cant do in real life. A way to release the pressure.

Your comment is contradictory. If a person is going to be violent no matter what they see or play, how does it stand to reason that a violent kid would benefit from playing a violent game?

And no one is saying that a game makes a person violent. However, is it possible to desensitize people to the point they are empathetic for a violent killer? If you think it mad, then I invite you to read the Sydney Morning Herald's editorial after the wake of that hostage crisis in Sydney.

One of the troubling things about gamers and games is that they think their medium is somehow to be judged by different merits depending on the emotions and reactions they elicit. On the one hand, we are told that "games are art", but art can influence people in myriads of ways. When that art elicits a negative outcome, suddenly gamers are quick to say that video games are just that, games. You can't have it both ways. If you want games to be elevated relative to other forms of entertainment you have to be prepared to defend that position and not retreat the moment someone makes a connection between violence and video games.

 

[TomSEA]

At some point you have to wonder what constitutes as unreasonable sensationalism or entertainment. There's plenty of violence in games without having to go the "ultimate" route by portraying a wholesale slaughter of innocent people. What's next? A game about herding Jews and other undesirables into gas chambers and then burning their bodies?

These developers are trying to sell the game on it's violence and social appall alone. That's not entertainment.

 

[TheBigFatClown]

A game can't force people to do these things in real life, or course, but at least this type of game can give ideas for some nutcase, just like certain tv programs, movies, etc. It's pretty difficult to prove with 100% certainty afterwards, but that's my opinion(and yeah, nothing new here)....

You need to follow your opinion to its logical end. If we're going to be worried about giving bad people ideas, it reasonably follows that any fiction or recitation of fact that is in any way violent is going to give bad people ideas. Thus, Hatred isn' the only title that should be pulled. Any game, book, documentary, movie, historical text, etc. that contains violent or nefarious acts should be removed from the general market place, to prevent giving bad people ideas.

People need to stop fretting over the possibility of influencing maniacs and pay more attention to the implications of their positions.

Your suggestion is not practical. But I think this comes down to personal responsibility as much as anything in life. Putting garbage into your brain all the time WILL effect your mental health. Just as putting a lot of garbage into your body will affect your physical health. Movies, games, books can give people bad ideas. But at the end of the day, it still comes down to the individuality of the person in question.

I watched horror movies and ate junk foods as a child when I knew no better. Still, I guess everyone is allowed to engage in whatever they want to as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. But that is always the question we seem to be asking. Do these game/movies/books hurt anybody by their influences. I would definitely say yes. But not everybody is influenced in the same way or to the same degree.

Another tough situation in which there is probably no clear-cut solution.

The more realistic a game becomes in terms of animating death and blood the more I shy away from it. I never had any real interest in Manhunt for the same reasons.

 

[cmbjive]

This type of opinion/mentality is one of the MANY reasons our Country is in such poor shape. I am being 100% serious when I say this may be the dumbest thing I have read in 2014 on Techspot.
And before the forum police arrive and flip-out, I am using dumb to describe a comment and not to namecall or throw puns. Read and comprehend please.

Truthfully, I think our country is in poor shape because we have borrowed an insurmountable amount of money that we will never pay back and then elect pols that tell us what we want to hear with regards to this insurmountable amount of money that we will never pay back.

Besides, as long as there is a First Amendment none of those things will possibly be removed or banned. However, ethics and morality of so much violence in our entertainment is certainly a conversation worth having.

 

[davislane1]

This type of opinion/mentality is one of the MANY reasons our Country is in such poor shape. I am being 100% serious when I say this may be the dumbest thing I have read in 2014 on Techspot.
And before the forum police arrive and flip-out, I am using dumb to describe a comment and not to namecall or throw puns. Read and comprehend please.

Perhaps you can clarify this for me. Are you,

a) Saying that my analysis of the comment I was extrapolating was so far off the reservation as to win Dumb Comment of the Year?

or

b) The line of reasoning I was pointing out is moronic?

Because my intent was to point out how ridiculous the guest's position is, as indicated here (emphasis added):

People need to stop fretting over the possibility of influencing maniacs and pay more attention to the implications of their positions.

 

[davislane1]

Your suggestion is not practical.

I didn't propose anything. I merely highlighted the fault with the guest's comment, if you follow his reasoning to its logical end.

 

[loading]

Well just like the game "Postal" it's just a tasteless genre.

I don't have a problem with this types of games (they just aren't for me) if I wanted to play a "horror" based game I'll go play one with a story. Mindless killing is just mindless.

 

[treetops]

A bit surprising considering that the original Postal (which is on Steam) is about the same thing - psychotic killer who runs around and kills everyone. Not to mention Manhunt which is very graphic as well.

But their platform, their rules.

The original postal was a comedy making light of the state of crazy post office employees from the 90s. I thought the COD mw2 airport scene was uncalled for. Being a hero and killing in a video game is one thing, but slaughtering innocent modern day civilians mass murderer style can't be good for anyone.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Well if Valve won't let Steam publish it maybe it'll make an appearance as a browser game in Googles yet to be released Kids Friendly Browser. I'll be sure to look for it there.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Another tough situation in which there is probably no clear-cut solution.

There is a clear-cut solution. But no one wants to hear the words "Godless people make violence". And before the nut-crowd shows up talking about all the wars fought in God's name, that is exactly what it was. A fight in his name, nothing more. Let me start a war in your name and then ask why, you were not involved.

 

[Adhmuz]

The game play looks like Dead Nation but minus the Zombie infection. Nothing crazy over the top, besides in the trailer and it's still pretty animated, if anything they might be little cut scenes while playing? But other than that the actual game play footage was nothing particularly violent or gore'y. The concept is very dark and twisted in many ways, but it's just a game. Nothing worth purchasing at the end of the day.

 

[plamya]

Is there a difference between and this and the GTA franchise? I thought in GTA (granted you have 'goals') you could still run loose and kill at will?

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

Video games already have warnings and so-called "maturity ratings". I really think that is sufficient. It is up to our society and parental figures to set an acceptable behavior. Video games can indeed influence people; but a normal, mentally healthy and sane person isn't going to decide to go do the same genocidal rampage they just performed in a video game. Yes there are sick people who probably shouldn't play violent video games because it may increase their desire to commit such acts in real life, but that doesn't make it the fault of the game. Nor does that indicate the game is unhealthy for other sane people.

I don't think distributors should be deciding what is right on wrong, society can decide that. If someone did make a game that was utterly inappropriate, sure some will like it but society may create so much disruption and displeasure towards the developer that they may decide not to continue. Distributors are just that, there to distribute products. Unless they have some terms of service agreement or policy stating specific lines that cannot be crossed in a product in terms of in-game behavior, goals, methods, etc. then they should just stay out of it. If people don't want the game they won't buy it.

People wanting to buy games of this nature say more about our society as a whole and not the game.

 

[cmbjive]

Is there a difference between and this and the GTA franchise? I thought in GTA (granted you have 'goals') you could still run loose and kill at will?

You can kill at will, but GTA still has a consequence: Kill too much and the cops swoop in on you to end your spree.

This game sounds as though there really is no punishment for all the killing you do.

 

[davislane1]

You can kill at will, but GTA still has a consequence: Kill too much and the cops swoop in on you to end your spree.

Unless you're good at the game... In which case, you can kill wave after wave of police forces until running to hide on a rooftop or under the sea until your wanted level disappears. Ask me how I know...