Hatred Has Returned To Steam Greenlight

Yesterday, Hatred was removed from Steam Greenlight. Despite having more than 13,000 votes and being the seventh ranked game of 2,000+, the isometric killing spree simulator had its page removed and Valve told the developers, “based on what we see on Greenlight we would not publish Hatred on Steam. As such we’ll be taking it down.”

Now it’s back and developers Destructive Creations have posted what appears to be an apologetic email from Gabe Newell regarding the decision. That’s below.

Since being reinstated, Hatred has risen to the number one spot on Greenlight, although the votes to visits ratio is now more evenly split than previously. Whatever the other results of the removal and readmission might be, Hatred is getting plenty of attention. And, yes, that includes this update on the situation.

Newell’s apparent involvement comes in the form of an email pasted on Destructive Creations’ Facebook page. It reads as follows:

Yesterday I heard that we were taking Hatred down from Greenlight. Since I wasn’t up to speed, I asked around internally to find out why we had done that. It turns out that it wasn’t a good decision, and we’ll be putting Hatred back up. My apologies to you and your team. Steam is about creating tools for content creators and customers.

Good luck with your game.


Does that mean the market gets what it wants, which seemed to be the purpose of Greenlight in the first place? I found the word “publish” odd in Valve’s message to the developers yesterday, as I wouldn’t think of Waterstones (other bookshop chains and smaller alternatives are available) as the publisher of Elie Wiesel’s Night, which I bought from them yesterday.

It’s entirely possible that the game will move through Greenlight but never go on sale anyhow, if Valve aren’t happy to trade in the eventual content. Newell’s apology may simply refer to the fact that it’s too early to judge.

Or it could mean carte blanche for submissions. Whatever the case – and we’ll try to find out – one consequence of this up-and-down situation has been that some Greenlight users now see a vote for Hatred a vote for freedom. It’s a funny old world.


  1. Guvornator says:

    This whole thing makes Valve look ridiculous. Taking the game off Steam, while (in my mind) the wrong decision, did at least send a message about what Valve thought was acceptable on Steam, and that they were prepared to put principles in front of profit, even if what those principle were was somewhat opaque. Now they just look like they’re blowing in the wind of popular opinion. And I’m no PR guy, but it’s probably not the best idea to restore a game about a guy on a gun rampage murdering innocent civilians a day after 132 innocent civilians were murdered by guys on a gun rampage…

    • darkliht says:

      In that case lets remove Manhunt and the Postal games as well since they are just as needlessly violent if not more so in the case of Manhunt where you are ACTIVELY rewarded for the most brutal way of eliminating your targets.

      • Ansob says:

        Neither Manhunt nor Portal were developed by neo-Nazis with a rabid Gamergate fanbase, though.

        • darkliht says:

          It has already been debunked that the devs are neo Nazi’s and the whole gamer gate bullshit is getting really old so let it fuckin die already

          Since I can’t reply to the person under me:

          link to i.gyazo.com

          Taken right from their website. But of course it’s easy to sit on your ass and demand evidence instead of doing research yourself

          • Premium User Badge

            basilisk says:

            Citation needed.

            The head of the studio saying “no guys, we’re totally not” is not debunking anything.

            EDIT: Just as I thought, you’re posting the exact same thing that I said didn’t count. Nice job trying to insult me there, too.

          • jezcentral says:

            As someone who has had friends share Britain First stuff on Facebook, I can see how people can get trapped by this sort of thing. (They later sent round apologies, too).

            And I would take his word if the point was his word in the first place.

            (Not that I’m buying this turgid game.)

          • typographie says:

            The burden of proof is on the ones making the accusation. The developers Liking a Facebook post from a right-wing Polish political group was flimsy evidence of neo-Nazi connections to start with.

            It doesn’t need to be debunked, it needed to be better-“bunked” in the first place.

          • PikaBot says:

            There was also the little matter of one of the devs wearing distinctly Polish neo-nazi imagery in a group photo, which I note they didn’t botherto address there.

            Also, saying ‘I’m polish, the Nazis killed a ton of Polish people, why would I be a Nazi’ is a bit thin given that there actually is an active and thriving neo-Nazi movement in Poland.

          • XhomeB says:

            What kind of imagery are you referring to? I’m looking at thephoto at this very moment and there is NONE to speak of.

          • Skit says:

            As said earlier, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Following extremist outlets also is in no way proof of sharing sentiments with them. Following the same logic, journalists and photographers and many others would need to be accused of the same. Dont forget, Nazi Germany was built on hatemongering and slander/libel campaigns.

            In regards to the shirt, i strongly advise to read up what the Cursed Soldiers were.

            If the game crosses a line or not is a matter of personal belief. As long as no laws are broken, everyones opinion is as valid as the next ones. Believing to have Moral Superiority is also a Supremacist/Extremist Stance.

            As a small sidenote, i would advise any hatemonger participating in this baseless libel sprint to maybe investigate some much more interesting and easier confirmable connections. Hint: Zenimax’s executives and some very juicy connections to not very tasteful porn money. If you follow that route further, you will very quickly realise that it wont be easy to buy games from any AAA publisher anymore. Steam is another matter entirely. The info is out there, but you really dont wanna know.

          • PikaBot says:

            What the cursed soldiers were is fairly irrelevant; what they are today are Polish neonazi symbols.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            Citation needed to first start throwing accusations of “neo-nazism” around tbh, you have it backwards. You can’t just use some sketchy tumblr that is tenuous at best then demand “citation needed” for these people to prove their innocence. It’s innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

        • Guvornator says:

          Which isn’t really the point. I don’t like the game, I think it’s a stupid, nasty game developed by stupid, nasty people for stupid, nasty people. But stupid nasty people have the same right to buy stuff as anyone else and my opinion shouldn’t really effect that. I’m not going to pretend to have been heartbroken about Valve dropping the game, but if Steam Greenlight is going to be a windows for indie developers they’re going to have to open to letting challenging material on. In short, unless laws are being broken, if gamers demand it, Valve should sell it. They shouldn’t be arbiters of taste.

        • honkskillet says:

          You’d don’t get to take someone down because they aren’t in lockstep with your political orthodoxy. I would never buy Hatred, but I’m not interested in censoring it. Censorship of game is wrong whether it originates from the right-wing or left-wing.

          • airmikee says:

            Seriously, you think a decision about whether or not to sell a video game in a store is the same thing as censorship?

          • gwathdring says:

            Censorship would be, say, banning the game from sale across a variety of sale platforms with some kind of highly coercive enforcement–most typically government force applied through law.

            Refusing to sell something because you don’t like it is freedom of speech. The right to speak is not the same as the right to be heard or the right to force others to provide you space for your speech in their private platforms. Steam is a privately owned sale platform. Steam has every right to control what appears on it’s page. Call it censorship if you want, but frankly if you want to tell steam they shouldn’t have an enforceable opinion about what they can appropriately sell on their own platform … YOU are the one who is attacking free speech, not Valve.

          • Jumwa says:

            I’m curious as to where all these sudden free speech advocates stand on Steam’s, never-changing anti-sex game policy. Violent games are nowhere near in danger of an “effective censorship” (by which I mean, so much store banning that though not technically censorship, the results are roughly the same) but sex games are all but non-existent, cast off to the dim corners of the internet.

            Maybe violence is capable of being meaningful, but sex games are doomed to forever to be tawdry and devoid of value, but we’ll never get a fair shake at finding out when only small/no budget games about it ever get made at the fringes.

          • Distec says:


            I’m not sure I take your meaning with “sudden” free speech activists. It sounds like you’re setting up a straw man. But…

            Valve absolutely should include more of those types of games. There’s nothing wrong with sex, and I see no reason why games shouldn’t explore it. Anybody who would argue for Hatred to be on Steam but frowns on sex games would be a hypocrite. And that goes the other way as well, as I am discovering in this comment area.

            That said, I would predict that if Valve ever opened the floodgates on those types of games, you would still get an endless amount of pissing and moaning about whether the depictions in any given game are “problematic”, “has the wrong ideas”, “not suitable for Steam”, or whatever ridiculous, petty hangup some ninny has.

          • pepperfez says:

            I’m curious as to where all these sudden free speech advocates stand on Steam’s, never-changing anti-sex game policy.
            I had a sarcastic lolgamers response lined up, but honestly: There’s a significant set of gamers who see violence as both fundamental to gaming (see the scorn for “walking simulators” and text games) and constantly under siege by powerful disapproving mothers. Sex, on the other hand, has never been in games, and so doesn’t ever need to be in games, because these gamers are, despite their pretense to subversion, at their core deeply conservative.

          • Farsi Murdle says:

            ” There’s a significant set of gamers who see violence as both fundamental to gaming (see the scorn for “walking simulators” and text games) ”

            False dichotomy. There might be some people who just love violence, but objections to walking sims and text games centre on how static and boring they tend to be. Those games don’t respond very well to player actions, which limits agency since you can’t really do anything except what the developers have explicitly allowed you to do. I don’t see those people objecting to, say, Minecraft or strategy games (which might have some degree of violence, but not the gory kind). I do see plenty of people dismissing modern linear shooters like CoD, though, because those are similarly restrictive of agency, and despite all the violence in them.

            Everyone’s opinion is different, of course, but you’re just wrong to conclude that anyone who dislikes walking sims must just want ultra gore in their games.

      • Ataru Moroboshi says:

        Why do people keep on citing Manhunt as some kind of defence? Aren’t the people in that game violent criminals who are out to kill the player? And Postal 1 too: top down shooter where everyone is a blurry mass of pixels, and there’s no closeups of victims begging for their lives before the player guns them down? Yeah, that’s exactly the same…

        • darkliht says:

          So just because they’re criminals it’s okay to be brutally violent to them. Double standard much? Violence is Violence regardless of who it is done against.

          • Kestrel says:

            There is totally an appreciable difference between in-game killing of a serial murderer and in-game killing an innocent civilian. “Kill them before they kill you” is way less offensive than “kill everyone you see.” My gut wrenches watching the Hatred trailer. It’s just sickening.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            It’s quite bothersome that people aren’t getting that.

          • Shadow says:

            It is. While all violence is ultimately bad, it’s quite an extreme simplification to put all violence on the same level, from self-defense or “kill or be killed” to the cold-blooded murder of harmless innocents.

        • honkskillet says:

          So then those games are in but Hotline Miami, by your standards, is out? The point is the line is arbitrary. “Does the game offend Ataru Moroboshi delicate sensibilities?” is not a good test for censorship. The unproven assertion that this game will incite real violence is fundamentally identical to the assertions make by conservatives (and other politicians) about GTA and any number of other old games. Logically you are on very shaky ground, but I suspect that emotion is your currency, and not logic.

          • Ataru Moroboshi says:

            Hotline Miami is a game where the people you shoot are thugs and organised criminals. Not exactly innocent people. If you’re going to try and run any other violent games Steam sells by me so you can catch me out on it, then let me also point out that the “No Russian” level of Modern Warfare 2 doesn’t punish you for not shooting the civilians along with the others, and it’s not trying to make you feel anything other than horrible for participating in the massacre.

            Hatred’s trailer shows the player murdering innocent people and police, and makes no indication that it’s about anything else.

      • Philomelle says:

        You… do realize that the entire point made by Manhunt is directly opposite to the point made by Hatred, right?

        The entire narrative behind Manhunt is centered around the idea that violence for the sake of violence is a terrible, disgusting thing. Yes, it delivers that point in the same way Quentin Tarantino does – by shoving a lot of it in your face and making it as disturbing and unsettling as possible – but its story ultimately notes that the worst possible thing that could happen to our society is if we become entertained by violence committed for the sake of violence.

        Hatred is literally the thing described by Manhunt as the moment when our society hits moral rock bottom.

        • mlaskus says:

          Huh, today I learned. I never got to appreciate Manhunt’s story because I got sick after my first murder. I had thought it to be mindless gorefest.

          • Philomelle says:

            That would be the game doing it right. Manhunt is a horror game where your character is forced to participate in a lengthy snuff film or his entire family will be killed. The violence in it isn’t designed to derive enjoyment from it, it’s designed to leave you disgusted, uncomfortable and upset.

            Comparing Hatred to Manhunt is like comparing Call of Duty to Spec Ops: The Line.

          • MakeSkyrimGreen says:

            Except that not all players of Manhunt are either smart enough to realise this (if it was actually the case), or just got off on the sick brutality of that horrible game.

        • XhomeB says:

          It’s so good to know you’ve already played Hatred and can comment on what kind of message its story tries to send. Bra-vo.

          • Philomelle says:

            Between developers’ repeated claims about how Hatred is all about “fun gameplay” and murdering innocent civilians is totally fun in it, plus them admitting that the game is cruel because of their desire to stick it to the man and combat the “political correctness agenda”, I would say the message Hatred is trying to send is pretty clear!

        • Metalmilitia623 says:

          No one knows what hatred is going to be about. They’ve shown one trailer and have a little bit about it on their site. I’m almost positive there is going to be some sort of story behind the game and it’s not just going to be racking up points for killing ala bulletstorm. I think people need to wait until there is more about this game before you can press so much judgment on it.

          All the other games mentioned prior to their release and after got tons of heat much like hatred and I think that is sort of unfair, sure those other games either make a mockery of violence like Postal or show that it is truly awful like Manhunt but who knows maybe hatred will have some aspect like that which we don’t know about yet.

      • wengart says:

        There doesn’t need to be a quantitative standard for how much or what kind of violence is too much. Running off of gut feelings is perfectly fine and how society judges shit/.

    • Neutrino says:

      I think quite the opposite. Any large company can make a mistake, it’s how they respond to that when it happens that matters. Valve seem to have dealt with this hiccup quickly and transparently, what more can you ask for really.

      • Ooops says:

        Exactly. Being able to admit a mistake and correcting it, is a behaviour that ought to be supported, not mocked.

      • Farsi Murdle says:

        It’s not transparent at all. We only have Newell’s letter because the developer posted it. Valve hasn’t responded publicly themselves. What is their actual policy for what’s allowed on Steam? They decline some things and accept others. Based on what? How did they manage to make the “wrong” decision originally only to change their minds? Do they even have a policy or do they just make it up as they go? How the hell is this transparent?


          Precisely. Quickly, certainly, but ‘because da boss said so’ is not transparency.

    • dorobo says:

      Steam could take them down again put them back up like do that same thing three more times and that would not hurt their PR… That christmas auction does though.

      • puffinmcpuffs says:

        Didn’t people say the same thing about hats in TF2?

    • Premium User Badge

      Malarious says:

      The management structure of Valve is probably to blame for a lot of it. There aren’t many companies where almost every employee has the ability to decide they’re just done stocking a particular product. The guy who removed the game obviously wasn’t in discussion with Gabe (he probably grossly underestimated the amount of bad press that would result). There wasn’t a top-level marketing strategy meeting to decide whether or not to pull the game, because Valve just doesn’t work like that.

      If anything, the entire development suggests internal friction at Valve, and differing views regarding where the company is headed. From what I’ve read about Gabe and heard him say at talks, ultimately Steam is aiming to be a very open environment for game developers. He wants to make it incredibly easy to self-publish on the platform.

      I suspect the main reason Steam has yet to offer “porn” games (i.e., games where nudity and sex are the main appeal) has to do with legality in a lot of areas. Valve doesn’t have thousands of employees and dozens of lawyers. They have difficulty complying with a lot of the (completely insane) laws of the EU, for instance. Their support staff in other languages is mostly limited to multi-lingual programmers/artists who volunteer to work on customer service for a few hours a day instead of working toward making content for Valve games. Selling pornography in many countries requires something more strict than just a checkbox that says “I’m over 18”.

      • Janichsan says:

        I suspect the main reason Steam has yet to offer “porn” games (i.e., games where nudity and sex are the main appeal) has to do with legality in a lot of areas. … They have difficulty complying with a lot of the (completely insane) laws of the EU, for instance.

        Views and regulations of pornography are much less strict in the EU than you think. You can rather blame there stance on sex and nudity on being an US company, having to deal with US laws and US morality (which oddly enough has far less problems with mindless violence – go figure).

        And so far, Valve has handled any local differences in youth protection laws quite fine, by offering specific versions of games where violence in games is regulated far more strictly than in the US.

        • ScubaMonster says:

          I have to ask, are you from the US? Because you certainly don’t seem to have a handle on the pretty much non-existent regulation of pornography here. We pretty much have no laws regulating pornography other than child porn (and laws of selling regular porn to minors).

          Have you read the new bans on types of pornography in the UK? Ridiculous list. We don’t even have any rules like that in the US, so your point is moot. I realize the UK doesn’t represent Europe as a whole, but let’s not lay this at the feet of the US.

          • pepperfez says:

            But that’s pornography. The amount of sexual content allowed in mainstream productions is very, very low (and also perversely specific: An R-rated movie can have suggestions of female-on-male oral sex but not male-on-female, for instance). Steam doesn’t sell pornography, and they certainly wouldn’t sell a game with sex as explicit as this garbageheap’s violence.

          • instantcoffe says:

            Have you ever seen the list of what is and isn’t tolerated on prime time television in the US?

          • aepervius says:

            “ScubaMonster” There is pretty much not many rule for porn around here. In fact some US producer are producing porn ehre , because of the more “welcoming” enviornment. Also ever heard of Pussy Talk ? French film. Also aren’t “rape” porn forbidden in some part of the US ? For all countries I know all ban on hard porn were lifted middle 70ies. Nowadays you can go into any newspaper seller and look for porn on the top shelf, have a lot of porn shop. Ever went to Frankfurt am Main Hbf ? Look no further to the porn city quarter. Too seedy for you ? just go to the itnernational airport , there are at least 2 porn shop I know of there. Don’t get me started on coproporn (caviar) one of the biggest export of the locals…, UK is the msot restricted part of porn of europe, so it is a bad example. Pretty much everywhere else there is less or no restriction.

      • Rive says:

        Yea, i agree that opening up Steam to erotic content is not a particularly attractive investment. The Porncrowd kind of has their outlets already, and the probable legal implications in addition to the possible dent on traditional customers is not worth the bother.It appears to me though, that Valve has moved beyond just being open. With Greenlight, they built a process that provides them with (almost) free forecasting and market research directly related to a specific product from the target audience. Adding Early Access, they got rid of all but the most fundamental QA for their shop, offloading risk almost completely to the customer.

        Sales, now evolved into mini-MMOs pressing hard on the impulsebuy and hoarding levers dump tons of games into accounts that will never get played, slowly lowering price-value perception. Steam Curators now helps leveraging all that exterior marketing power to dump even more “lists” into the customers face, further expanding the retargeting portfolio.

        Now, theres only Windows to be taken care of, as one of the last third parties Steam has actually to pay something too. Google must be fuming too, not a lot SEM Dollar from the slightly overweight Knifenerd, Friend of all Gamers and Last Hope of PC Gaming. Unless you threaten him on Twitter, in that case he will crush you, your colleagues and destroy every hope you have on really making money with your game. Although his customers deaththreat him everyday on his own forums when a game doesnt start, gets released 2 minutes late or does not run with 16x antialiasing on an IPhone 3gs.

        Jesus Christ…

    • Distec says:

      Well, you already touched on it a bit in your post. “Principles before profit” is pretty meaningless when those principles aren’t defined and deployed on a whim. That’s exactly what the original takedown seemed like.

      I actually think Valve made the right decision here… eventually. Somebody at Valve’s offices likely jumped the gun after having a viscerally negative reaction to the title. But if there’s a principle being expressed, it’s likely in GabeN’s statement above.

      (And I will give Hatred this: It looks like a far more complete and substantial game experience than 90% of the forgettable crap you see on Greenlight. It’s probably far more deserving to pass through the system than most of its peers for that reason alone.)

      • Tasloi says:

        Your last paragraph is why I voted in favor when it popped up in my queue 2 days ago. That’s a rarity on Greenlight from my experience using it aswell.

      • GunnerMcCaffrey says:

        ” I will give Hatred this: It looks like a far more complete and substantial game experience than 90% of the forgettable crap you see on Greenlight. ”

        Yes, Nazis are known for their thoroughness.

    • Niko says:

      Agree, that just makes Steam looks stupid.

      • shinygerbil says:

        Especially after perma-pulling Paranautical Activity.

        • Great Cthulhu says:

          That’s not really the same thing. The dev of PA made a public death threat. While he obviously wasn’t serious about it, that’s something that people can be put in jail for. The people that make Hatred only work on something that’s objectionable; it’s not at all illegal.

          Personally, I’m very glad about this intervention by Gabe. Steam is not just a store, but an ubiquitous piece of infrastructure. As such it shouldn’t refuse customers or products the way a supermarket would, but should serve any legal party, as for instance railroads do.

          The whole situation does reinforce my belief that Steam and Valve are only as good as Gabe. For now I trust them, but the minute Newell loses controlling power, I’ll go back to my default assumption that they’re just another money grabbing, consumer screwing corporation.

          • AXAXAXAS MLO II: MLO HARDER says:

            I few like Gabe right now is becoming a kind of mythical businessman, like immediately pre-sale Notch, that has very little involvement with the company they run but who has very little say on it. Every time he speaks directly about Steam he prefaces with some variation of “I didn’t know much about what was going on, but…” including the present case.

    • Smoky_the_Bear says:

      The last thing it was, was “principles before profit”, it was the absolute opposite. A knee-jerk reaction due to fear of bad press losing them sales.
      Thankfully a level-head prevailed and they made the decision not to pander to the moral outrage crowd throwing around all sorts of baseless accusations.

  2. Jams O'Donnell says:

    I had completely (and, I assume, rightly) forgotten about Hatred before this media coup. Thanks, Lombardi.

    • elilupe says:

      Very good point. Hatred is just a juvenile cry for attention, and so far it’s working. Like all commercial cries for attention, it’s creating this massive hullabaloo flame-war. But what’s gonna happen after it eventually gets released and the initial hubbub dies down? It’ll be forgotten, like the mediocre, shallow, ugly cry for attention it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

      • Faxanadu says:

        Except of course for the pile of money in the studio corner. And them rubbing their hands together as they’re about to make another pile of money with Hatred 2, since there is no lack of gullible pretentious tolerance people to advertise their products – and they never learn, either.

        If we had more people who have an opinion of their own and less who think their opinion should be your own none of this would have happened.

  3. PopeRatzo says:

    Hotline Miami without the hipster music.

    • dorobo says:

      Hipster music is what makes it good..

    • Jason Moyer says:

      Bashing hipsters – so mainstream it actually annoys non-hipsters. Not that I’m exactly sure how Hotline Miami’s soundtrack is hipster music.

      • PopeRatzo says:

        Way to miss the point, which is that Hatred is basically a game that made an Advent Calendar. Except made by awful people.

        • Jason Moyer says:

          There was more going on in Hotline Miami than “run around killing random people”. Even mechanically, they don’t appear to have much in common. I’m not saying Hatred shouldn’t exist or should be censored or whatever, but it doesn’t look particularly good either.

          • Nogo says:

            If Hatred has a “the music dies and you’re forced to review the obscene damage and gore you’ve caused” moment, I might give it a pass.

            But we all know it won’t.

          • Cybert says:

            So a game can have whatever it wants in it but as long as it says “that stuff is actually bad” at the end it’s fine?
            Hotline miami’s violence isn’t different because the game mentions it at the end.
            On the topic of Hatred, I’m not that interested in it, but it certainly seems better than a lot of the shit Steam is selling.

    • NegativeZero says:

      Not sure I agree with that comparison. Music aside, Hotline Miami had you murdering a bunch of thugs, mobsters and the odd attack dog here and there. They’re actively ready and able to kill you if they see you and will try and do so without hesitation. Far cry from the wanton murder of innocents that Hatred seems to be peddling in what they’ve shown. I’d also argue that Hotline Miami has a story and is trying to express things through its violence, but it’s not yet clear that Hatred isn’t. Though it doesn’t look like it’s trying to.

      Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be on Greenlight / Steam though.

      • Baines says:

        Mind, they only actively try to kill you after you break into their homes with the intent of killing them.

      • Nogo says:

        Steam apparently does have a policy against games that primarily exist to cause controversy. I don’t think something like Savagery by Anna Anthropy would be appropriate under those guidelines either, for example. That said, Destructive Creations have been nothing but professional about all this and their stated goal does include “fun gameplay,” so Gabe has a point as well. These comparisons are all pretty moot though, considering the best argument from one of the most powerful courts in the world literally came down to “I know it when I see it.”

        I think the most interesting story would be if Hatred attempts some sort of classification. Also worth noting that neither the AO or MA version of Manhunt 2 is on steam (could be a million different reasons though.)

    • ffordesoon says:

      Or the challenge, or the smart design, or the arresting visuals, or the pacing, or the feel, or the point, or any of the other things that make Hotline Miami great.

      You might as well say the American remake of Get Carter is simply “Get Carter without that asshole Michael Caine.” It’s one of those statements that is both technically true and astonishingly myopic. Style and intelligence and swagger and artistry – these things matter. Yes, both games are on a surface level about running around murdering people for the lulz, but, to paraphrase Roger Ebert, it’s not what a game is about, but how it is about it.

      There’s also the fact that Hotline Miami’s enemies fight back and can kill the player just as quickly as the player kills them, and the deliberate choice to make almost all the enemies faceless, nameless, voiceless, backstoryless drones. Whatever you think of Hotline Miami, there is a good deal more to unpack there than “Gosh, isn’t senseless brutality fun?” It is thoughtful in its thoughtlessness, and responsible in its irresponsibility.

      Based on what I’ve seen of it, Hatred is just irresponsible, just puerile, just vile. Assuming it is meant to “just be a fun game free of all the pretentious bullshit” (and I have serious doubts about that), I’ve seen nothing to suggest it’s a success even in that regard, save for some mildly interesting particle effects.

  4. Anthile says:

    My favourite theory: Hatred is actually Funny Games-esque in nature and now they have revealed that to Valve.

    • Guvornator says:

      No need for theories, Richard Cobbett has actually played it link to richardcobbett.com

      • Oozo says:

        If only they had announced in the trailer that you can be friends with The Ketchup! So much misunderstanding could have been avoided.

      • pepperfez says:

        Real talk: When I watched the trailer I 100% expected that reveal as he walked out the door. My contempt for the developers is less because they’re neo-nazi perverts than because they wasted the opportunity to make a game of reverse-Pyrovision.

    • Premium User Badge

      Malarious says:

      I’m more inclined to believe the “official” story about this one. I seriously doubt everyone at Valve — or even multiple people — gathered ’round to debate whether they should or shouldn’t remove Hatred from the storefront. Most likely, it was a lone employee who thought he was justified. The challenging part is that once someone at Valve’s made a decision, it’s usually set in stone unless Gabe steps in himself to reverse it. So even if other employees disagreed, they decided to wait for Gabe’s judgment before taking any action.

    • Cheeetar says:

      Hatred is Frog Fractions 2?

  5. emperor_nero says:

    Good on GabeN, some people may not agree with the game but it isn’t promoting an agenda of hatred toward specific people from what I have read. People are too easily offended by the smallest things, and when it comes down to it many games are just mindless killing sprees with a very thin motive. This game has the balls to not just have you kill people without having to have a very thin motive to make you feel more self righteous.

    • alright says:

      Well, if this thing about the devs being really far-right is true, it does make you think if it’s intended as an Anders Breivik simulator.

      • Distec says:

        Well, maybe we can take action after those accusations have been substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt.

        I’m not directing this next statement to you specifically, but… By God, I am really tired of certain voices in the media (gaming or otherwise) whose most vocal objections to content pretty much amount to “It’s just too far right, man”. And this kind of politicized thinking seems to seep everywhere. I found myself agreeing with a conservative politician on some issue the other day and a liberal peer felt dutifully compelled to inform me that “Well you know he’s a right-winger, yeah?” as if that was some gross offense that should change my opinion.

        • alright says:

          uhm, we’re talking nazis here dude

          (also I have absolutely no issue with right wing opinions being “”stigmatized”” in certain environments, but I’m not generally seeing it, I mean the right is in the government in most of the world)

          • Distec says:

            “Well, if this thing about the devs being really far-right is true”
            One post later…
            “uhm, we’re talking nazis here dude”

            I hope you can pick up on why this troubles me, dude. Because as far as I know, nobody has proven them to be Nazis.

            And I disagree with a lot right-wing opinions and ideals as well. But I can separate those ideas from the people well enough to respect their right to make a product or even agree with them occasionally if they make a good point. Nobody is 100% right or wrong all the time, so how is it useful to pretend otherwise?

            My semi-coherent rambling point is: Even if Destructive Creations’ was some BNP-voting, Islamophobic, racist outfit, Hatred should live or die on its own merits. I guarantee you will find problematic beliefs held by practically any content creator. It’s just really convenient and easy in this case to go “Yeah, fuck Nazis. They’re hateful dumbshits” (even if they’re just bogeymen in this particular discussion).

          • Razumen says:

            Ad hominen much? It doesn’t matter even if they ARE actually Nazi’s, they have as much right to develop and sell a game as anyone else as long as it’s not breaking any laws.

          • PikaBot says:

            Uh, I feel that it matters at least a little that they’re Nazis.

          • Kaeoschassis says:

            This is the thing, you’re effectively both right.
            Even if they’re Nazis, they DO still have the same right as everyone else to develop and release a videogame, legally and morally speaking.
            But what they don’t have is a ‘right’ for any particular publisher or store to sell that videogame. That’s up to the publisher or store in question and, actually, they don’t even have to give a reason if they don’t particularly want to stock it. From both a legal and moral standpoint, they can just say “no thanks”.
            From a business standpoint, eh, it may be kind of stupid. But would sell a game you really despised for people you really despised, hypothetically?

          • cederic says:

            Evaluate the game on its own merits, not the politics of one of its developers.

            Personally I’d have Blair and Bush prosecuted for warcrimes but if I release a Dachau mod for Prison Architect I’ll expect you to evaluate it in its own right, not based my mostly liberal political views.

        • Allenomura says:

          It is really tedious to have any kind of discussion about games, while outside influences are being used to tar/dismiss creative works.
          If you don’t want to buy a game, that’s your business, but going around putting creators before content should be considered as valid of a contribution as spam to internet discussion.

          • Kempston Wiggler says:

            While I agree the work and the author/creators are distinct to a degree, you can look at one without relation to the other, it is nonsensical to say you can totally separate them. If I’m going to make a purchase – the business angle of the interaction you don’t seem to have considered – I have the right to decide if I want to give my money to someone who may use it for something I completely disagree with.

            Case in point: the film, Ender’s Game. Creator Orson Scott Card’s deep homophobia was not something I wanted to show any support for, so I declined the opportunity to see the film in the cinema. Nor will I ever purchase the DVD/Blu-Ray. As far as I can tell the man’s a complete tool. no sale. I still love Ender’s Game, however, as a work of fiction. I just refuse to endorse any product of his in a fiscal manner.

            IF – and I stress IF – Hatred is being made by people who support any kind of extreme right-wing beliefs or organisations, then I wouldn’t mind knowing this before making a purchase.

          • Faxanadu says:


            Friggin’ word. If you don’t like the content creators view on the world, then GOOD FOR YOU, personally, I’m here for games, the article is about a game, and your reply is spam. Go discuss politics elsewhere.

          • Skit says:

            Kempton my friend, be honest:
            Would it have been harder not seeing Enders Game if the reviews would have bern glowing with praise?

          • Kempston Wiggler says:


            It was already a really tough choice. I’m “genre” mad. i watch almost exclusively sci-fi/fantasy. The reviews don’t normally bother me that much because I don’t trust them; my opinion tends to differ quite a bit.

            Also, let me be absolutely clear – I wasn’t going to pay to see it. I had no objection borrowing my friend’s copy once she got one.

        • pepperfez says:

          I, too, hate that other people don’t share my politics.

          • Agent00Funk says:

            Whoops, wrong reply slot.

          • pepperfez says:

            Ha! I saw that and was pretty baffled. You’re right, BTW, even if your reply-aim is spotty.

  6. AngoraFish says:

    And yet they’re happy to remove sexually-themed games from the store… the world is completely bokers.

    • Premium User Badge

      Neurotic says:

      That’s American morality for you. You can’t screw it, but you can totally kill it.

    • P.Funk says:

      Unlike with the depiction of violence, sexual content is frequently a mine field of legal issues in many places, different in every one of those places.

      The backlash against Hatred would be nothing compared to the legal cost of crossing the morality laws in the wrong jurisdiction.


        Steam already has pretty good territorial control to make sure that (say) Australians can’t use virtual morphine and are charged up the wazoo; I honestly doubt they’d have a lot of difficulties deciding who gets to see a tit. Aren’t The Witcher 2 and Ballad of Gay Tony both in there?

        • Cantisque says:

          They are, but they have PEGI and ESRB ratings. Most indie games on Greenlight can’t afford that, because, surprise, it costs money just to have a board room put a sticker on your game stating it might offend someone.

          I forget which game, but one of them censored their Steam release when it passed through Greenlight, but provided a patch on their website to replace the Steam-distributed art assets with uncensored ones as a workaround. One of those visual novel type games…

    • farrier says:

      One of my film professors summarized the rating system pretty succinctly, and it pretty much applies to entertainment in general: “If someone says, ‘I’m going to f– you up,’ that’s PG-13. But if they say, ‘I’m going to f– you over a desk,’ well, that’s R.”

      (PG-13 = parental guidance *cautioned* until age of 13; R = under 18 are banned)

      • vlonk says:

        We have a saying about the age restriction system to. Goes like this:
        up to age 12: the hero gets the girl: up to age 16: the bad guy gets the girl: 18+: everyone gets the girl

  7. Lars Westergren says:

    > It turns out that it wasn’t a good decision

    Really? I thought it was a great decision.

    Oh well, there will be a bit of dutiful media squawking, some teenagers will get to feel rebellious for an hour before realizing how boring the game is, and then it will fade into obscurity.

    • alright says:

      Seriously, if you take out the edgy teenager concept, the game sounds like the most boring thing ever.

    • ahac says:

      > realizing how boring the game is

      Oh, you played the game already? Tell us more!
      Or is that just your wish, because you’ve seen the trailer and think you already know everything about the game?

      • shinygerbil says:

        Tell me more about how good this game will be. Factually only, please. E***cs!

        • Hex says:

          That’s…the point. The guy you’re responding to is saying “We can’t make a judgment on the game’s quality, because it’s not available to try, yet.”


          I don’t know why I bother replying to stuff like this.

          • Distec says:

            I also liked the “ethics” jab, as if that had anything to do with the post that he/she responded to.

      • Nogo says:

        Other games manage to look fun and interesting with trailers. Unless they’ve been hiding some hidden wealth of content, it just looks boring and limited. There’s tons of radial shmups out there brimming with way more imagination than we’ve seen here.

    • Boosh says:

      Perhaps we should, you know, run all new games by you, just to be absolutely sure they conform to your particular world view and prejudices.
      Of course it was the right thing to do, I don’t really want anyone, let alone Valve, making these kinds of decisions for me.

      • Agent00Funk says:

        I’m not sure if you’re a child with undeveloped critical thinking capabilities or if you’re just a moron Boosh, but let me explain to you why you are so dumb.

        First, Lars Westergren merely stated that Valve did the right thing by removing the game. That is his opinion — he made no mention that the game shouldn’t exist, merely that Valve did the right thing by pulling it off their shelves. I know, I know, reading is hard! Equating somebody’s opinion on good business with totalitarian censorship review is totally easy though!

        Second, and this is where your ignorance truly sparkles, is that Valve isn’t making any decisions for you. They are making decissions for themselves. Its their store, not yours. You can still buy the game from the dev’s website (BTW, this is how you screw Steam if you really want to) or any other distributor willing to whip out their 10-foot pole to touch this hot mess. Nobody is making a decision for YOU except for YOU. If somebody doesn’t want to buy the game, that doesn’t make them in favor of censorship and if a business doesn’t want sell a game, that doesn’t make them a tyrant. In fact, forcing a business to sell a product it does not wish to sell is tyrannical. Your freedom is not abridged, yet you mock those who exercise their freedoms to disagree with you.

        I’m assuming you’re like 12 years old, so I’ll be gentle when I say that you really should think about what you say before just barfing it onto your keyboard.

  8. Premium User Badge

    distantlurker says:

    You can still buy physical books?! o_O Is that next to the buggy whip shop then boss? :P

  9. alright says:

    Valve just played into their “constroversy” PR campaign which was beyond obvious. It’s ridiculous.

  10. almostDead says:

    Your move warriors for justice.

    • Synesthesia says:

      well this was an easy block.

    • Tssha says:

      …I’m awake. Oh, I’m sorry, was there something I’m supposed to do? I can’t recall…sorry old chap if I’ve inconvenienced you.


      My move? OK, I move every ‘zig’.

    • 2helix4u says:

      I’d definitely be considered a “SJW” or whatever and I really am not offended by this game and don’t know why we’re supposed to be.

      I’m actually pretty in favour of violent games that don’t pretend to be morally righteous about it.
      Pretty much every AAA series has a serial killer as the main protagonist but he only kills Koreans or Terrists or Criminals. It seems like a lot of people’s beef with this game is about the moral pretext being stripped away.
      Everybody appreciated at least that Spec-Ops was making a point when you roasted civilians but at the end of the day its still profiting off of violence and just throws in a couple sad-song slow-walking sections to wash its hands of the blood.

      I was a bit of a butthead teenage kid and played games like Postal and always enjoyed violent games where the protagonist is a psycho, there was an illicit thrill in it. However, you always knew that the character in question wasn’t a role model, most games are much more insidious. I mean Nathan Drake kills hundreds of people, steals cultural artifacts, aggravates mercenary wars in the developing world, kills indigenous tribes etc. He’s portrayed as a likeable hero on the defensive, whereas the serial killer in Hatred is portrayed as a serial killer.

      I probably won’t even play this game, but this really isn’t a battlefield worth fighting over.

  11. iainl says:

    Blimey. If you simply must allow the game back on Steam, at least clean up the forum threads asking for named individuals to get killed in the game first.

    • Geebs says:

      Heh, what if GabeN is on that list of named people? should they go all wrath-of-God, like they did with that schmoe they dicked around and then ended the career of?

      • LionsPhil says:

        There’s a difference between the developer themselves making that threat, and one of the crazies their online forums attracts doing it.

        • Geebs says:

          Highly implausible ‘threat’ vs highly plausible racists. I mean, people continued to work with Phil Spector when he was actually shooting at them in the studio, y’know?

          • LionsPhil says:

            How plausible or not the threat is is irrelevant.

            One is shouting at your business partner.
            The other is some wanker on the Internet standing next to you to shout at your business partner.

          • Geebs says:

            Not shouting, shooting

          • LionsPhil says:

            I have no idea what point you’re trying to make any more, because that article is not comparable to either situation.

          • Kempston Wiggler says:

            Reading this little interchange was like watching a dog trying to mate with a cat. :)

  12. RaveTurned says:

    So rather than refusing to sell the game and allowing it to become some kind of martyr to the cause of “damn SJWs takin’ away muh vidyagames!”, it’ll be released under a heap of shock-based hype and critical scrutiny, be seen to be shallow, boring and generally terrible, garner a fraction of the expected sales and then sink slowly into obscurity.


  13. horsemedic says:

    The game looks horrid. But when I think about why it’s horrid (the player is meant to be entertained by carrying out graphic murder), I realize that hundreds of other shooters use cheap tropes to obscure the fact that they offer the same sick pleasures. Your enemies are Nazis, so it’s ok. Or their death animations don’t make you feel quite so queasy.

    If nothing else, kudos to Hatred for depicting the player’s acts with gruesome realism and no easy fictions to soothe his morality.

    • RobF says:

      I don’t really see that as earning any kudos, it’s the path of least resistance if anything.

      • P.Funk says:

        Almost getting banned from the most influential digital distributor in the realm of PC gaming is the path of least resistance? Blimey.

    • Nogo says:

      Except games live and die on that thin veneer.

      Take two shotguns. One is an un-animated stick with no sound, the other has weeks of modelling, sound design and animation built into it to give it a nice feeling. They’re functionally the same, but we all know which one we’ll actually spend time with.

      The vast majority of effort and resources put into any creative product is all about polishing that thin veneer. Read Braid’s post-mortem if you want a perfect example.


        but we all know which one we’ll actually spend time with.

        If my recent gaming history is any indication, it’s the unanimated stick, because it’s attached to a bizarre, hyperfocused procedurally generated game.

        Or Paranautical Activity, in which case, not.

  14. NailBombed says:

    So, this isn’t a game about collecting red hats? Thought that Valve would be down with that kind of thing…

  15. Premium User Badge

    basilisk says:

    So Valve doesn’t have any bosses, eh? Flat company structure as far as the eye can see.

  16. Advanced Assault Hippo says:

    It’s the correct decision to reinstate it – otherwise they’re opening themselves up a giant-worm-size can of worms. If Hatred is taken off Steam due to its content, anyone with half a brain cell would see that logically they would have to also take down endless other games for the same thing.

    Otherwise Valve would become a complete joke and resemble a ragtag bunch of hypocrites. Easier to just let this one back in and let customers make their own minds up. It means they can remain consistent at least.

    But I have been laughing at some of the attempted justifications that Hatred was somehow worse than other civilian-killer games. Some of the arbitrary reasons plucked out of the air in defense of Valve’s initial decision have been most humorous.

    • Hypocee says:

      Steam is already a can primarily of worms. Seen the new releases the last year or two? Wall-to-wall mobile ports, Air Control, Baby’s First FPS Maker… The principle that was in jeopardy here could be stated as ‘We just want to maintain an API and cease to face any public; we have noooo standards whatsoever beyond responding to external lawsuits.’ You can run a store like that – a digital store more than physical – but it won’t be a place I want to go.

      Valve already look like hypocrites a few times a year. Attempting to avoid applying a principle differently in different contexts is a route to insanity for a real person, let alone a fictional corporate entity. Off the top of my head, that great line that ‘pirates are underserved customers’ – ever been through Valve’s customer ‘service’ ticket system? And ‘No content economies in Minecraft’, from the developers of Hat Marketplace 2 and Skin Marketplace 2.

      Making decisions necessarily means getting it wrong sometimes. It is much easier to retract to a purely passive lack of any identity or human involvement in decisions. In corporations the process is often referred to as ‘going public’.


        Valve hasn’t been an actual curator of the games it offers through Steam for years. Its primary interest is, ultimately, that regular Gamer Joe is capable of buying every game he hears about on Steam, therefore remaining blind of other avenues of purchase; this necessitates that they allow any game that has a chance of becoming famous. The opening of the Greenlight floodgates was the first sign that they’ve accepted this fate, and Hatred’s reinstatement is, I think, the last.

        • Smoky_the_Bear says:

          As much as I would like Steam to be the measuring stick of quality in PC gaming that it once was, I have no issues with their current open door policy to be honest, I don’t buy stuff without research anyway so none of the crap they sell affects me one bit. The only issue being that these shit games they are selling do take away from the work of more deserving people by depriving their games of marketing space on the front page.

  17. Dawngreeter says:

    I think Valve made the right choice here, for obvious reasons not worth getting into.

    However, I also believe it obvious that Hatred isn’t the same as Postal, GTA or whatever other game it was compared to. It is explicitly and manifestly worse. And I would’ve been fine with it being excluded for that simple reason. I do not require people or companies to operate under some sort of Constitution-grade iron set of laws. Rough consensus, running code, all that. People trying their best and not being required to lawyer their decisions into some kind of precedent-based legal framework is perfectly fine.

    • Kaeoschassis says:

      I think Valve made the right choice here, from a business and pr perspective. I think they’re going to have people yell at them for awhile no matter what they do, but this will probably mean less yelling.

      However, I also feel that if Valve decide they just plain don’t want to sell a game there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Their store, their choice.

  18. Emeraude says:

    Good. Now we can go back to giving it as little attention as it deserves.

    A good example of Valve as an “Enlightened dictatorship”. Perfectly fits that narrative.

  19. Synesthesia says:

    Can I make a game about being a kapo in auschwitz now, and get bonus points when I jump on their necks?
    What a lack of nerve from valve. Pretty dissapointed in this one.

    • P.Funk says:

      You referenced the Nazis. By internet law your opinion has lost the contest.

      Would you like to play again?

      • airmikee says:

        You referenced them as well, making your argument invalid.

        Care to play again?

        • P.Funk says:

          That law only applies to those who make the original reference. Subsequent references based on the original reference are exempt, particularly when umpiring the application of elemental laws of internet discourse.

          • pepperfez says:

            I feel like there should be an exception when the discussion is about literal nazis.

          • P.Funk says:

            Except it isn’t. You lazy twits keep repeating things that you like hearing, that validate your need to hate these guys when its been shown that they’re nothing more than average racist Poles, which just so happens to be a remarkably common thing in that country.

            So no, they’re not Nazis and making a ridiculous reference to the Holocaust doesn’t make anybody sound righteous or intelligent. Its just tacky and as I inferred above something so irrelevant to discussion that it is generally considered a great way to lose an argument by default.

          • Synesthesia says:

            Yeah, being tacky was exactly my point. There’s no zomg censorship or freedom of speech issues here, it’s just a tacky, worthless work, that was pretty rightly so pushed aside the table.

            It’s easy to be tacky. It’s not so easy to say no, it seems.

          • Distec says:

            If it was so rightly pushed aside, then why is it back on Greenlight? Or do you think Gabe Newell buckled under the pressure of Nazis/Poland/a sub-reddit?

          • pepperfez says:

            No, I think one of:
            1) Gabe Newell falls victim to the same cognitive bias of many dimwit nerds that all speech must be allowed everywhere (see Tropes vs Women comment controversy)
            2) Gabe Newell wants everyone to see Steam as synonymous with PC gaming and not hold him or his company responsible for what they choose to sell.

          • Distec says:


            In regards to point 1: Gabe might not think all speech should be tolerated everywhere, but he does not want Valve or himself to be moral guardians about the products that appear on their store. That’s a completely sensible decision even if you detest Hatred with every fiber of your being. No cognitive bias involved.

            Maybe he just trusts you, as an adult consumer, to make that purchasing decision yourself. I’m pretty sure Amazon leaves this at your discretion as well with countless products.

          • pepperfez says:

            they’re nothing more than average racist Poles
            I suppose the distinction between “murder-obsessed racists” and “neonazis” is an important one, but I can’t figure out to whom.

          • Distec says:

            Well, to be absolutely clear and realistic about this, there is a difference.

            I can think of a lot of foul opinions from foul people, and most of them are not what I would classify as “murder-obsessed”. You may think this is a silly distinction, but it’s an important one if you want to have any kind of serious conversation. No discussion benefits from that kind of hyperbole.

    • mukuste says:

      Yeah, me too. I lost a bit of respect for GabeN with this decision.

      Also, it seems weird, in yesterday’s post I had the impression the majority agreed with Steam taking the game off Greenlight, and now suddenly the overwhelming majority seems to gratulate GabeN on “doing the right thing”? Are the Tuesday and the Wednesday crowds just that different or did I get the wrong impression yesterday?

      • vlonk says:

        It is the magic of news! It might be the same readers who where silent yesterday. Might be a wandering crowd of topic-specific readers. Really want to be a spectator in the analytics department on this one, get things into perspective.

      • Jamesworkshop says:

        no because the issue isn’t should they or shouldn’t they, but about whether valve has the right to do what they think is best

        I believe valve is perfectly entitled to make the choice to sell or not to sell, if yesterdays decision was not permanent, then this decision might not be permanent either.

        • mukuste says:

          I think there can be no discussion about that, Valve is a privately owned company and can carry or not carry whatever game they damn well please, as long as it’s within the law.

          “Censorship” doesn’t even enter this discussion.

          • Kaeoschassis says:

            Try saying that in the threads about this one on the GOG forums, I dare you…

        • Smoky_the_Bear says:

          That’s the issue, everybody was having different discussions. Some like me were discussing whether they thought it was the right decision and why, others were simply repeating until blue in the face “IT’S THEIR RIGHT TO DO THIS!” as if that was some magical end point for the discussion. The difference between CAN they do this and SHOULD they do this make it two completely different points of conversation.

          The issue for some people definitely was “should they do this”, you are completely wrong in that regard. I know full well what the rights of a private retailer are, nobody needs to tell me that, however it’s my right as a consumer to question any decision made by a company like Steam in any legal means necessary and somebody stating “It’s their right to do it” does not detract from my opinion one iota.

      • Nogo says:

        I didn’t see many people agreeing valve should take it down, mostly that they could and that there was precedent.

        Also, a lot of people just want clarification about what Steam is supposed to be. Yesterday they were all about curation, today they’re all about openness. Either one is fine really, but some damn concerted effort one way or the other would be most appreciated.

  20. Jamesworkshop says:

    Don’t really care if they do or don’t sell

    it’s valves store and it’s not like we are required to buy it just because they sell it,

    a bit like GTA, I don’t like it and thus i don’t buy the game

    I have to say that I don’t really feel the hate, hate is strong and specific, misanthropy tends towards moralizing about human agency, pollution, wars, etc

    Hatred seems to lack any cohesive opinion, just a big inert void.

  21. Monggerel says:

    And absolutely nothing in particular has happened.

  22. P.Funk says:

    This is all pretty much the gaming press’ fault. They stirred this crap up. At least Gabe knows what to do. Leave the steaming pile of crap to fester in its little corner of Greenlight.

    You stupid gaming press people though (not sure if RPS, judgment reserved til review of posted articles completed), basically guaranteed this game would sell.

    Moral indignation accomplished. Game’s popularity… rising… Asthma… remains, but game’s popularity rising!

    • Synesthesia says:

      Yeah, I quite agree with you here. Should’ve been left to rot in it’s dark 8chan corner.

    • Tssha says:

      Yeah, I’m sure this is exactly what the developers wanted. It’s pretty much the best case scenario. Controversy draws eyes, who may or may not be interested in the game, and there’ll likely be a million (or maybe just half a million) folks who’ll buy this game just to spite the “Social Justice Warriors” in a fit of tribal solidarity (that is, to hew to what they feel is their own tribal identity, which is definitely NOT that of the other guys who are stupid and smell funny).

      In the meantime, it’s still (able to get) on Steam, which is to impulse buys like shopping malls are to loiterers. You’re gonna get a few, even if they have absolutely no reason to be there. Even the most desolate, unshoppable, pointless indoor mall will draw people who will amble about idly, not intending to shop; they just need a place to hang out.

      Substitute desolate, unshoppable, pointless indoor mall with banal, fun-deprived game and the metaphor completely works. I am a GENIUS!

      Assuming it’s as unfun as I think it’ll be. I could be wrong; in which case, I might even play it.


      Hey, RPS did the right thing – ignored a game that’s shaping up to be boring until actual news popped up.

      The actual news wasn’t “Hatred, Trend-Setting Amazing New Game Blocked By Vidyagaem Store, Then Reinstated!” but rather “Steam Bans Game Without Blaiming Tits, Then Goes Back On It”.

  23. Ooops says:

    This is definitely not a game I would buy, but I really didn’t understand Valve’s decision to pull it because
    1) There are very similar (in temrs of unsavoury content) games on Steam
    2) The neo-nazi accusations were a bit thin (I mean, if I had to bet, I’d say he does have sympathies for those movements, but it’s still very far from certain). You don’t make such a heavy business decisions based on hearsay, especially as the creator has denied the acusations (again, I personally am not convinced the denial was sincere, but that’s more a hunch than a properly informed judgement)

    And to those who think Steam is “looking ridiculous”, you’re not helpful to ethical business practices. A company that admits it did wrong ought to be supported rather than mocked.

  24. dethtoll says:

    I love how people keep bringing up Postal and Manhunt. And even Hotline Miami!

    I mean, really guys? How many of you have played that mode in Call of Duty where you kill a million fucking people? It’s called Call of Duty. It’s also practically every other M-rated game there is these days. Should we ban those? No, you’ll say, because context or something. And yet you ignore the context of Postal, Manhunt and Hotline Miami.

    In order: mentally ill guy in 90s clothes believes a hate plague has driven everyone insane (nevermind the implication that he may actually be right), sequels go into hardcore satire territory; convicted death row murderer placed in deadly game by mad filmmaker with the backing of corrupt police force; professional hitman forced to come to terms with his violent past/possibly going insane.

    What’s the context for Hatred? Not a whole lot beyond some
    Jeff Weise
    bullshit. Protagonist seems to be little more than an escapee from an early 2000s Very Special Episode about how all goth kids are murderers-in-waiting. If anything is deserving of the title “murder simulator,” this is it, because even in context there seems to be little justification other than sheer nihilistic self-destruction.

    To say there’s no difference between Hatred and the rest is dishonest at best, even ignoring the fact that Hotline Miami is deliberately retro and the others are over a decade old.

    Hatred is fucking vile. I feel sick just watching the trailer. I don’t feel the same way about playing Manhunt, or GTA, or whatever.

    • Wowbagger says:

      I totally agree, thanks for putting it down so succinctly.

    • Hex says:

      Sigh. Horace ate my reply. I typed up a big thing…and now it’s gone. :(

      The upshot was that while your point above is a good one, I can’t help but feel like Hatred is on the same spectrum as CoDs and GTAs and so on.

      While it’s something, I suppose, for CoD to dress up its targets like terrorists, the reality is that the player is still engaging in pretty unsettling levels of brutality. Both Hatred and CoD strive to give the player the most gratuitous murder experiences they can. That’s fucked up whether it’s terrorists or civilians you’re murdering.

      Hatred is much more fucked up, yes. It’s still in the same ballpark, I’d argue.

      Heck, from what I’m told — I don’t tend to play any of the types of games we’re discussing, here — in GTA games you can perform all sorts of unspeakable acts. On civilians. Who also run away from you as you start mowing them down. But apparently, the fact that “GTA doesn’t reward the player for murdering civilians” is a difference enough from Hatred that it gets a pass?

      Well, look at it this way: Valve is making Hatred available for sale on its store, but it won’t be rewarding the people who purchase it.

      Seems fair.

      • dethtoll says:

        Spoken like someone who has never played a CoD or GTA game in his life. If you had you wouldn’t be making these bullshit comparisons.

        • Hex says:

          That’s weird, because while I’ve avoided both of those franchises for the most part, I’ve played a little of each. And in both games (including several iterations of GTA), the majority of my time was spent murdering people. Mostly civilians, in GTA’s case.

          You’re oddly aggressive.

          • dethtoll says:

            How am I “oddly aggressive?”

            I am literally calling the comparison you made bullshit, because you basically read my entire post, absorbed nothing from it, and then went and posted the exact same thing my post was ripping into as if I’d never actually posted anything.

            If that’s “oddly aggressive” I wonder what happens when someone disagrees with you IRL.

          • Hex says:

            I dunno. I think I said you’re right — there is a difference between Hatred and these other games. I just don’t think the difference is as great as you’re making it out to be, and I state why.

          • dethtoll says:

            Your post basically boils down to “important differences don’t matter when I want to make a point no matter how much that point’s validity depends on me ignoring those important differences.”

          • Hex says:


    • Kempston Wiggler says:

      Hatred is fucking vile. I feel sick just watching the trailer. I don’t feel the same way about playing Manhunt, or GTA, or whatever

      An odd position to take for a guy calling himself “Dethtoll”…

      I just watched the trailer based on those words of yours. It’s certainly graphic, and pretty much as Dark tonally as Dark gets. But then what exactly is Hatred depicting that hasn’t been depicted before? Death for the sake of death? GOURANGA! Gore? Hell, son, I remember having fun cheerily stabbing soldiers IN THE FACE in Soldier of Fortune 2, delighting in the graphics that [VERY] crudely depicted me taking chunks out of that unfortunate man’s head, or even just blowing his limbs off one at a time with a shotgun. Ever fired a sniper rifle into some dude’s face? Of course you have. What did you think that puff of red pixels and collapsing rag-doll were actually representing?

      Just because this is straight out presenting you with a murder rampage just makes it more honest than most, I reckon.

      • dethtoll says:

        My name is based on a Duke Nukem 3D midi. You’re welcome, sugarcookie. But nice job dismissing my point based on that.

        • Tssha says:

          Saying your name is odd given the context of your post is not a dismissal, it’s just a comment (and an aside at that). Your reply, on the other hand, is a textbook dismissal (a laser focus on the least relevant part of the post while addressing nothing else is a stock-standard method of dismissal) and accusations that could more easily be leveled against yourself than your opponent are what is known in psychology terms as “projection”.

          • dethtoll says:

            Oh sweet, I always wanted some free psychotherapy for the hellish state of my preteen life. Thanks, Obamacare!

        • Kaeoschassis says:

          Dang, I remember that track. Ah, my misspent youth~

        • Machinations says:

          Are you usually this passive aggressive and do you often dismiss well reasoned comments out of hand?
          The frothy moral outrage from your ilk is highly amusing.

      • Gormongous says:

        Soldier of Fortune 2 isn’t available on Steam, either. I’m not sure what your point is here, besides trying to make dethtoll look like a hypocrite for drawing any kind of line in the sand.

        • Hex says:

          The game isn’t not-on-Steam because of its level of violence, though. Nobody would get up-in-arms about it if Soldier of Fortune appeared on Steam.

          That’s his point.

      • bonuswavepilot says:

        I dunno… In most of those other things the person you’re turning into red pixels isn’t an unarmed woman pleading for her life.

        Yeah, moider is moider, but context does make a difference.

  25. Lobotomist says:

    Ok. Now (as this was not bad enough) we will see developers try to top it.
    Like we seen Mountain simulator bein topped by grass simulator and rock simulator.
    Just here we will soon see “Pedofile” : You are pedofile raping children , and “Young Nazi” : You are skinhead nazi killing jews and black people , and the popular hit ” Holy Fighter ” : you are ISIS fighter capturing westerners and decapitating them (Style bonuses awarded)

  26. milton says:

    I honestly think that while this is not everyone’s cup of tea, I applaud Gabe’s approach to sorting out the situation. There was confusion over the double standard of what violence is considered ‘acceptable’ since Hatred’s removal and it is nice to see that they have addressed these questions.

    I think it is too early to judge Hatred until it is released or until a decent chunk of gameplay footage is released to the public. I say this because it is impossible to judge something that presents such confronting ideologies and situations until we examine what the studio presents in its entirety. There’s nothing wrong saying you find this morally repulsive, however please only state this after you have been able to more accurately examine what they are presenting.

    There is a large disapproving crowd mostly due to subject matter which is completely understandable, however something regardless I think we should come to it unbiased. At the best case it is thought provoking and proves to be confronting in a self reflective manner. Similarly to certain styles of art, it shocks to prove a point. Worst case scenario, it’s a gratuitous murder simulator born out of some angry child’s twisted dreams. Unless the Devs are extremely talented, in the long run I do not believe it will provide any lasting legacy other than the news articles and controversy during it’s conception.

    I personally am curious to see the finished product, even if I don’t believe the themes behind this are particularly tasteful. If the devs manage to give it some proper thought provoking substance, I’ll be eager to watch others play this game through.

  27. Pantalaimon says:

    Pulling this was the best thing Steam did all year. Disappointing turn around. I have absolutely no problem with them moderating their own service. Vile game supported by a vile crowd, there’s no reason why they should get the benefit of distributing on a platform like that.

  28. airmikee says:

    So now racists and haters know they only have to fool gullible people into making their hatred about freedom of choice, and now we’ll have racist, hate filled games for racist, hate filled people.

    Neo-Nazi’s 1
    Sane people 0

    • Kaeoschassis says:

      Yyyyeah I’m cool with Valve selling or not selling or not-selling-then-selling whatever they please, but this trend of using “freedom of speech” to bulldoze through any and all arguments that crop up is really starting to disturb and upset me. The law says you’re allowed to have an opinion and say words about it. It does not say you are entitled to have people listen to you, sell your game, or anything else. Ugh.

      • Rise / Run says:

        Also, my understanding of ‘freedom of speech’ is that it tends to be freedom from having the government squelch your speech. And last I checked, Valve isn’t a government entity.


          Well, of course not. Governments’ jurisidictions are much easier to leave.

      • Allenomura says:

        “The law says you’re allowed to have an opinion and say words about it” and once he became aware of what had happened. someone in a prominent position at Valve heard those words, and reckoned that a mistake had been previously made, once he became aware of what had happened.
        Doesn’t the point that words can be said, consequently lead to the outcome that those words are likely to be heard?

        Then, are you mostly annoyed at the volume of pushback against the original situation which got people to speak.
        Would you rather they had not spoken?

        • pepperfez says:

          There’s no particular reason for those words to be listened to, though, because in this case they’re some stupid damn words. Neo-nazi murder-porn being sold or not sold on any particular market isn’t an issue of free speech or monopoly power or whatever, and if you believe the mewling gamechildren’s cries that it is then you’re being foolish.

          • Kaeoschassis says:

            Basically my point, yeah, if put a little less pleasantly. Someone at Valve made the decision to sell the game again. That doesn’t mean they think anyone’s right to speak was being violated. It wasn’t. Your right to speak, as I said, is not a right to be listened to. Your right to create a game is not your right to have it stocked or sold. If steam didn’t sell their game they could still sell it themselves, or go elsewhere. Would it be harder? Yes, certainly. But if they make a game nobody wants to sell then that’s their problem and they can find their own way to deal with it.
            People are literally calling this a freedom of speech issue, they are crying censorship as if it means something, and that’s simply not the case here.

          • Machinations says:

            Wow, you are really out of your mind, arent you. A little moral panic and presto youre Jack Thompson.

          • Kaeoschassis says:

            …and do you often dismiss well reasoned comments out of hand?

    • shinygerbil says:

      Yeah, I find it difficult to believe that even people who are commenting here on RPS don’t get that, when right above the comment box is the statement:

      “We do not have a freedom of speech policy here. If we find your post offensive, or just don’t like it, it may get deleted.”

      By a similar token, Valve are not obligated to publish or distribute anything they don’t want to. Sure, freedom of speech is a very important thing, but it isn’t the same thing as trying to force all your friends to repeat what you said for you. Nor is it the same thing as being allowed to run into somebody else’s house and shout at them.

      • Kaeoschassis says:

        Or indeed, running into somebody else’s house and demanding they sell your game for you.

    • Distec says:

      Oh no, the Nazis have taken over Steam. Guess you can’t game on the PC any more.

      I don’t know why there’s this persisting lecture about freedom of speech and how “Valve isn’t obligated to carry it” when… well, the issue has been resolved. Valve backtracked and decided that the game does have a home on Greenlight (for whatever that’s worth).

      Yay freedom? I’m sorry if the xkcd comic doesn’t slot nicely into the dialogue any more.

  29. Xotes says:

    Personally, I don’t care for Hatred at all, and I don’t plan on buying it because it makes me uncomfortable. At the same time, it looks like it’s well put-together with decent production values, and I fully support it getting onto Steam. Just because it’s gruesome and violent and nihilistic doesn’t mean its developers should be punished by being forced off of the biggest digital distribution platform out there.

    The developers put in a lot of hard work to make Hatred, and their personal political leanings don’t matter one whit in my opinion. If they put out a polished product, they deserve to have a shot at selling it. There’s undoubtably a market for it, and while I’m not part of it, that’s absolutely fine. I’m not forced to buy it, and so I won’t.

    • mukuste says:

      That argument isn’t tenable unless you also agree that a polished, well-produced concentration camp simulator or child porn ring management game would be just fine and dandy. Good production values aren’t a free pass to do whatever the fuck you please.

      • pepperfez says:

        No, you see, this game is different from your examples because of Obvious Reasons and also Maybe You’re The Real Nazi. In this case, the game is most similar to Things You Think Are OK, so you have to agree with its availability everywhere.

      • Distec says:

        You’re right. Good production values don’t give you a free pass, because there’s none to give. You can do whatever the hell you want.

        I’m sure Valve would probably put their foot down on any kind of title that was specifically targeting a group of people or being explicitly racist/prejudiced in its content. But that doesn’t appear to be the case here. So we can save the “Can I greenlight Jewstomper 3000?” shit when that actual title arrives.

        Now that you mention it, I can actually kind of envision a child pornography game in the same vein as Papers Please or something like that. I would have zero fucking interest in purchasing or playing such a game. But y’know, I’ve watched a number of films that touched on the material. No, I didn’t “enjoy” any of them.

        But one taboo at a time.

        • Faxanadu says:

          RPS comments ever so slightly restore my faith in humanity.

        • Kaeoschassis says:

          Right, surprisingly I actually 100% agree with you. There are no free passes here, everyone is ALREADY free to make whatever game they please.
          But you just watch, when someone does make a game like your example, and online stores start refusing to stock it, there is going to be an enormous goddamned outcry. Just like there was this time. And that things like this are consistently portrayed as censorship issues is really beginning to frustrate me.

    • v21v21v21 says:

      Who ever said nihilism isn’t worth anything?

  30. rcguitarist says:

    I find it funny how the game game is not realistic in the way of the main character. I mean, if they are going for realism, the main character needs to be very socially awkward, nerdy as all get-out and as skinny as a stick. Not a bad-ass looking, tall body builder type with a strong personality. Those people are always loser wimps, hence why they do what they do.

  31. Hex says:

    So what gets me about this game, is that if all the objects resembling people were re-skinned to look like goblins, this would be just another aRPG.


    I’m also tickled by the “we should be tolerant of everyone but the intolerant” sentiment all over this site the everywhere.

    • nojan says:

      this site though.. i know right?
      But they’ve got good reviews i’ll give them that!:)

    • pepperfez says:

      I’m also tickled by the “we should be tolerant of everyone but the intolerant” sentiment all over this site the everywhere.
      lol morality is dumb amirite? We should only be intolerant of the intolerant against the intolerant. It’s just simple logic.

      • Hex says:

        Or…those that insist on preaching tolerance could try to be mindful of when they’re being intolerant, and adjust accordingly.

        A witch-hunt is a witch-hunt. It’s dumb think of oneself as a more “tolerant” person than those who’ve come before, while simply rolling with the changing concepts of “morality” and flaming whoever makes a good target today.

        If you want to be tolerant, be tolerant. Don’t preach tolerance from one side of your mouth while damning the hateful from the other. Being hateful against the hateful is still hatefulness.

        • pepperfez says:

          The problem with witch-hunts is that witches don’t exist. If they did exist, and they were eating children and poisoning crops, then only an idiot would say we shouldn’t go hunting for them.
          Violent racists and violent racist media exist.

          • Distec says:

            Where is the violent racism here that you’re concerned about.

            I’m sure the takeaway lesson from historical witch hunts is not “Duh, witches don’t exist!” but how completely innocent people get fucked over by irrational mob mentalities. And those aren’t a sole product of The Right that some people here seem to think in their fantasy bubbles.

            Now, nobody today is getting burned at the stake. But I have seen plenty of people get tarred as “racist” or “misogynist” for no real good fucking reason, potentially lingering on far longer than they ever should have. Those are weighty labels that some people on the left have chronically abused and hurled at anything they take issue with.

          • pepperfez says:

            I mean, fair enough, I get that you’re a right-wing dude and you’re annoyed that some other right-wing dudes are being called nazis. Thanks for standing up against the great political outrage of our day, right-wing dudes being occasionally inconvenienced.

          • Distec says:

            Actually, I’m annoyed at the reflexive response that anything you dislike is right-wing or Nazi, and I dislike how “right-wing” is thrown around as an attempt to shut down discussion; both with those who are and those who arguably aren’t. But your attempt was cute.

            Since you so clearly Get It™ and feel that trite, bullshit comments about my “true colors” are acceptable at this point, please go the full nine yards and make a hashtag for me. I imagine that would be far more fulfilling for you, and you’d waste less time.

          • Machinations says:

            Yes, everyone who disagrees with your predictable moral outrage is a right wing neoNazi. Please, keep up the slander, its quite amusing. I envision you trembling with rage at Catcher in the Rye.

        • Kaeoschassis says:

          “Being hateful against the hateful is still hatefulness”
          Yes. Needlessly insulting and screaming at hateful people is just as unpleasant and unproductive as those hateful people insulting and screaming at you, and it needs to stop.

          But “tolerating the intolerant” is not tolerating people, it’s tolerating intolerance. At its worst, it is tolerating outright hate crimes. Standing by and smiling and saying “that’s okay, you have the right to be as horrible a person as you please” when someone is consistently and ruthlessly singling out people because they’re different and making their lives miserable or unliveable, that’s “tolerating intolerance”. Is that okay? Is that right? Is that making things better for everyone? Is it even just not making things worse?
          If you witness a beating and you do nothing you’re as guilty as the attacker, and THAT is tolerating intolerance.

          Call me hyperbolic, fair, enough. I’m angry. Call this rhetoric if you want. I’m not talking about Hatred, the game specifically. I’m just answering your comment.
          Do people seriously believe this “intolerance against the intolerant is still intolerance” stuff or is it just a cheap and easy excuse for defending actions they don’t want to be accountable for?

          • Hex says:

            If I’d meant “tolerate intolerance,” that’s what I would have said. The words themselves, and my various post around here, are (as far as I can see) clearly about being nice to each other, whether you (not you specifically; the general you) like one another or not.

            I do not condone intolerant behavior towards others. Even if the others are hateful asshats. That is all.

          • Kaeoschassis says:

            Right, and I’m 100% with you on that, as the first paragraph of my reply was meant to convey. If that’s really how you feel that’s good to hear, I have no quarrel with you and I’ll openly apologise for ranting at you. But I will say that you didn’t come across that way at all – to me at least.

          • Hex says:


    • Baines says:

      Everyone knows that tolerance only applies to people who believe the same things that you believe. Like how “religious tolerance” in the US really means “tolerance/power for Christian and ‘Christian-approved’ religions”.

      • Hex says:

        Yes, which is why you see no synagogues, mosques, or buddhist temples in the US, and why there’s exactly one flavor of Christianity represented across the entire land.

    • mukuste says:

      Show me the RPG in which the goblins beg for mercy before you decapitate them in excruciating detail.

      Also, yes, context does matter! Who knew?!

      • nojan says:

        how about not buying it hmmm? so are you also offended by all the ultra violent films out there too?

      • MaXimillion says:

        While not an RPG, Shadow of Mordor pretty much fits that description

        • mukuste says:

          I haven’t played it but I seriously doubt it glorifies violence in anything close to the way that the Hatred trailer does, based on all I’ve seen and read about it.

          • jonahcutter says:

            The violence in Shadows of Mordor is not glorified. Its violence is brutal and messy and visceral. Arguably carnal.

          • Kaeoschassis says:

            …wait, you can marry the orcs?

    • Dorchadas says:

      I’m also tickled by the “we should be tolerant of everyone but the intolerant” sentiment all over this site the everywhere.

      The point of advocating for tolerance is to increase tolerance all around, not to create some kind of unrealistic hippie paradise where the person who says “I’m a redhead” and the person who says “kill all redheads” can exist in loving harmony.

      Accepting intolerance does nothing to increase tolerance. Rather the opposite, actually.

      • Hex says:

        I disagree. Some people will always hate redheads. The best way to deal with this is for redheads to demonstrate kindness to them, and humanize themselves to those who hate them.

        Showing hatred to those who hate redheads will simply entrench them (the haters of reheads) in their belief that redheads are a valid target for their hate.

        More flies with honey blah blah blah.

        • Dorchadas says:

          I’m not really talking about reciprocal hate (which is pretty useless, as you mention), but more just setting boundaries. It only takes a few bad apples hating redheads to ruin the atmosphere for everyone–compare the study from last year that found the the tone of comments on science articles was as or more influential as the article itself–and it’s better to just say up front that it isn’t tolerated. I wouldn’t expect redheads to always react with kindness and love when they’re having abuse hurled at them, because that removes any moral obligation from the redhead haters, which is where it belongs.

          • Hex says:

            Perhaps the “moral obligation” (whatever that is) belongs with haters, but haters are obviously the people least concerned with their moral obligations. Hence the hate in the first place.

            Hate is frequently a result of ignorance. Being intolerant of the ignorant isn’t helpful. If intolerance bothers you (not you specifically, but the general you) then I would argue that the moral obligation lies with you to address the ignorance which feeds the hate.

            While I can definitely agree that in certain forums, strict behavioral guidelines should be enforced, I don’t know that I want Valve dictating what I’m allowed to review for purchase.

            They’re a private company and can choose to carry/not carry anything they like. Great. They also claim that they’re trying to be as hands-off as possible, which I appreciate.

            Let people put whatever trash on their store they want. I’m more than comfortable opting not to purchase it, all by myself.

          • pepperfez says:

            If intolerance bothers you (not you specifically, but the general you) then I would argue that the moral obligation lies with you to address the ignorance which feeds the hate.
            That’s either ludicrous or objectively pro-intolerance. If I think something is wrong, that means it’s my fault until I fix it? Bigots can’t be blamed for their bigotry, but I can for being bothered by it? “Well, that mugger doesn’t have a problem with mugging, so I guess this one’s on you.”

            It’s amazing how much ethical antithinking this whole debacle has inspired.

          • Hex says:

            It’s actually making me chuckle how much you’re going out of your way to get outraged, here. I’m starting to think you’re a troll parodying the bleeding-hearts who crusade in comments sections internet-wide.

            But to give you the benefit of the doubt, no — I didn’t say that ignorance/intolerance are your fault (specific you, or general you) until you fix it. Simply that if ignorance and intolerance bother you, the most helpful and effective thing you can do is to form a relationship with the offender, and try to educate them and sensitize them to your way of thinking, gently and with grace.

            Just being an asshole to them isn’t really any better than them being an asshole to whatever demographic you’re championing. Being an asshole in reprisal for someone else’s assholery is childish and accomplishes exactly nothing, ever, except possibly making you feel like a clever young internet dweller for a good 6 minutes.

            Grow up. Or, y’know. Keep doing what you’re doing. It’s good for the occasional laugh. Which is, after all, the best medicine.

          • pepperfez says:

            If I had read more closely, I would have seen that you admit to not knowing what “moral obligation” means, so obviously I shouldn’t have judged your position based on your use of it. My bad, I assumed you had an idea to get across.

          • Hex says:

            Sort-of apology accepted.

  32. nojan says:

    I’m glad it’s back , taking it off steam was just stupid, they’ve got a lot of games along the lines of this … i may not get this game but it’s good to see some moral police won’t make this choice for us!

  33. RegisteredUser says:

    All egg aside, I approve.

    I suspect a “went it alone” bible-thumper had a monent of “This shan’t be! The powers of my shift-delete click compel you!” and when a more objective look at it came around, it sorted itself out.

    Good. Voted “Yes” so hard.

    • Hex says:

      Yes, that’s infinitely more likely than that it was a bleeding heart pinko liberal hipster athiest.

      • RegisteredUser says:

        If that was an attempt at being sarcastic, all I can say is that it simply read with a mental “Right? We Agree!” instead.
        ( Also: a-the-ist, in case it wasn’t just a rush-typo. )

  34. nekkerbee says:

    I think most folks don’t recall how upsetting Postal could be. Granted, it’s cartoonish by current standards, but:
    – You murdered children as well as adults.
    – If you didn’t kill someone outright, they would crawl around leaving blood trails, moaning in pain, and saying things like “Kill me now” and “I can’t breath”, the latter progressively weakly as the victim bled out.
    – You had a suicide option, where Postal Dude would say “I regret nothing” before blowing his brains out.

    Really awful, no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and I had a grand time playing it as a kid.

    • LionsPhil says:

      IIRC Postal 2 dude just bites down on a grenade and shrugs.

      • sventoby says:

        You could also pee on Gary Coleman.

        • LionsPhil says:

          To be fair, I do think even 2 had people with complete-body burns shivering in the foetal position while whimpering for their mothers. So, y’know.


    • XhomeB says:

      Good point, people like to argue that Postal has always been “satirical” when it comes to its approach to violence… while Postal 1 was anything but. It was a gruesome, dark and psychodelic game.

  35. Duckeenie says:

    There is no correlation between video game violence and real life. … Oh! wait.

  36. igrad says:

    Valve, with their initial handling of the situation, was pandering to the overly-cautious “may I speak with the manager” mothers of newly adolescent kids. Video games are meant to act as just another medium to embody a message, just like a TV, painting, or magazine; the only differences lie in interaction. The same storm came during CoD:Modern Warfare 2, if you’ll recall, when players could shoot up an airport full of civilians to further the plot. While it did, as mentioned, further the plot and the bad guy’s individual character development, it was still deemed acceptable by a simple feature to toggle it on or off. In suit, if one has an objection to Hatred, simply don’t buy it. It’s that simple. Other genres have been able to display this sort of anarchic debauchery with no problem (see the films “Rampage” or “We Need to Talk about Kevin” and you’ll understand).

    The belief that these sorts of games inspire young ones to massacre their schools is nothing more than false blame. The issue lies wholeheartedly with parenting. If a parent can’t be there for his or child enough to explain that killing dozens of people in real life is wrong, that innocent lives are not something to be tossed away, then they, in fact, should not be a parent at all. Of course young kids should not be exposed to this sort of violence in any sort of media, especially one that gives the recipient control over the situation. This is why we have the rating systems. If you believe your child is not ready for a game such as this, don’t buy it for them. If he or she is old enough to purchase it for themselves, he or she should have, by that point in life, a sense of moral understanding of the gruesome finality of mortality.

  37. woodsey says:

    Putting it back on was the right decision and, as usual, asking for something to be banned has blown up in the face of people asking. No one would have heard of this, now its the top thing on Greenlight. Absolute morons, honestly.

    • mukuste says:

      Bullshit. It was already immensely popular on Greenlight before they pulled it. Can’t say I like what that says about large parts of the gaming community.

  38. lordfrikk says:

    The game is sickening and the people who made it disgust me.

    • pepperfez says:

      Don’t you realize they’re fighting for YOUR GAMER RIGHTS against the leftist prudes who are trying to TAKE YOUR GAMES AWAY? If you don’t think nationalist murder-porn should be sold in all stores, you’re basically opposed to all culture.

  39. Turkey says:

    I predict that within the next two years someone is going to make a mod for Hatred that gives the protagonist a rainbow colored trenchcoat and a machinegun that shoots flowers.

  40. v21v21v21 says:

    Kinda off theme, but here we go…

    so, yeah, I looked up the “trailer” and, no, I haven’t gone through the comments above.

    But I’ll tell you what my beef is with this software. No, please, I insist.

    Beside the obvious, meaning, the target group for this “by definition” has a higher percentage of “egdy” people.
    And that even “well-balanced”, “mature” personalities will have their tolerance lvl increased by this, heck, even sightly just by watching the “trailer”. Georgy O said as much back in ’48.
    Anyway. My point is about immersion. In RL people who behave that badly don’t last as long. They are not fed a neverending sausage-chain of victims. After the suprise element is lost, they have to actively search for the next guy (or gal) in hiding. And soon, something else goes through their brain.

    So, yeah, I guess you could say my complaint is this software is not realistic. And that helps some people form the wrong impression.

    Well, I ‘ve gone through my inverted commas allowance for this month, thus, bye-bye. (Regular commas as well)

  41. sventoby says:

    Should I play this game or not? – I think the decision is best left in the hands of the end consumer. Good call by Steam.

  42. cdx00 says:

    Controversy aside, this game looks very mediocre. I won’t picket it. I’ll just not play it, let others buy it, and suddenly, the game will fade to obscurity just like Postal 1 and 2 did alongside Manhunt.

  43. Spacewalk says:

    I was hoping that Hatred would be a video game but it fails at being a video game so fucking hard you guys. There’s no skeletons or rats to kill in the first dungeon, no coloured keycards that open corresponding doors, you can’t grind against walls to trigger secret walls and there’s definitely no desert, ice or volcano worlds. Also there’s no invincibility powerup that makes a spinny star shield appear around you and you can bet your arse there’s no blue skies.

    You know what, it’s a fucking art game. I thought that we were supposed to be cracking down on this shit and not giving things a free ride with it.

  44. Faxanadu says:

    Woohoo, freedom of opinion wins the day! Down with the nazis, by-which-I-do-not-mean-the-creators-of-this-game-because-that-is-a-ridiculous-unfounded-claim-but-the-people-who-want-to-ban-things!

    I wonder though, what if there was a game about torturing babies. What would be my reaction then?

    Then I realize it’s not the same question at all, because this is all political and pretentious controversy, nothing that is actually “hideous or gross”, bloody hell, the game looks like your everyday shooter. Oh it has some gory execution scenes BIG DEAL. Hah.

    • Emeraude says:

      I wonder though, what if there was a game about torturing babies. What would be my reaction then?

      I’d only have two questions:

      a) Were any babies hurt in the making of the game ?
      b) Is the game advocating for the actual killing of babies in real life (ie, I guess, can it be classified as hate-speech ?).

      With no being the answer to those two questions, I’d go with the same general attitude I have for Hatred: contemptuous disregard. I’m not even convinced there’s anything in this game that hasn’t been made in worse form by another medium, be it film or books.

      • Faxanadu says:

        Yeah, putting it like that makes it a pretty obvious decision. Not obvious enough for a lot of people that’s for sure, but I’m sure they’ll catch up by the time we actually get a game like that. Or not.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      “I wonder though, what if there was a game about torturing babies. What would be my reaction then?”

      The question weighing the most on my mind these last 2 weeks is “What if there were a country calling itself beacon of freedom and liberty that instead tortured and warred as it pleased?”. More people seem to have strong emotions over videogames than the real world.

      Apparently the majority reaction is to frown briefly and then go on watching Republicans say Cuba is an evil country nobody should let up sanctions against, because they endorse torture and are against freedom.

      How can your head not explode living in that place and seeing those two things(Republicans and CIA report) coincide? How are there not daily protests and marches on Washington in truly massive proportions?
      I guess as long as they only come for the not-mes its all good..

  45. Zyvo says:

    I can’t wait for ISIS to make Beheading Simulator 2015. Which will obviously have to be carried on Steam for Free Speech Reasons.

    • Faxanadu says:

      Yeah no. Since you didn’t read the replies, I’ll paste one that fits your comment:

      “I’m sure Valve would probably put their foot down on any kind of title that was specifically targeting a group of people or being explicitly racist/prejudiced in its content. But that doesn’t appear to be the case here. So we can save the “Can I greenlight Jewstomper 3000?” shit when that actual title arrives.”

      Now if only I knew how to use quotes.

      • Zyvo says:

        The Hatred trailer literally calls itself a “genocide crusade” and most of the up close kills are focused on people of color.

        • pepperfez says:

          But they don’t have swastikas tattooed across their faces, so your argument is invalid.

  46. ZombieJ says:

    HAH! I can almost hear a highly opinionated Valve employee getting a verbal beatdown right now. Indeed, Valve doesn’t “publish” this game, or many games recently. This flip-flop on the decision has of course garnered even more attention for this project, and if the usage of english (spelling specifically) on the official greenlight description is anything to go by it’s a “project” more than it’s a game (indie or otherwise). Personally I’ll be playing it because I love a bit of the old ultraviolence, but there is a certain concern here: There is scientific evidence that violent games do not turn people to violent behaviour, but also evidence that violently-minded people use violent games to plan attacks. I wonder how the devs will feel after receiving all this semi-anonymous attention.

  47. Continuity says:

    I’m glad its back, it may be a terrible game, or not, but i’m of the opinion that if its not illegal then there is no reason to censor. Its down to the individual to decide for themselves if there is any ethical or moral issue, and if they believe there is then they have the option not to buy.

  48. Rive says:

    Isnt anybody happy that there is finally a game that at least stirs some honest-to-god controversy and starts a debate among gamers what should or should not be in a game? This whole debate is something that has more potential to generate something relevant for our culture than MountainDew-Dorito, Gamergate or any other of those fads. Isnt it fascinating how the vultures start to peck at the developers, slewing around accusations of racism, hatemongering and bigotry, not realising they are doing exactly that? Attacking other people with no evidence whatsover because they do not agree with what those individuals are doing.

    Personally, i think Hatred looks like an interesting TwinStick Shooter reminiscent of something like Loaded and Renegade Ops. Visual style seems very tight, with cool destructible environments and very well designed executions. I think they even surpass the grueling dismemberments of the RPS adored Shadows of Mordor and the throatslicings and heartstabbings of not so well received but brilliantly looking Assassins Creed.

    Jonatan Söderström of Hotline Miami fame probably wishes that he had this kind of publicity when he was working on his insane/mindwashed psychokiller action game where you bash peoples brains in with a golf club wearing a horsemask because two dudes in the serwes brainwashed you over the phone.

    Investigative Gaming Journalism and the Reddit Gestapo probably wasnt as keen pissing on him as on longhaired group of polacks wearing metal shirts and not being all techno, hicolor and hipster about it.

    Please continue to be morally superior, as mentioned by someone above. You fucking morons.

  49. racccoon says:

    I knew you would have to post something on Hatred eventually your torn apart by your what you think are right ways but really are wrong ways, I did try to make everyone aware of it despite your stance & over at massively. .

    I see no problem with this ITS ONLY A GAME!! & well made one brilliant work on the DEVS behalf.

    In the STEAM regard this shows money talks bullshit walks. they now have pandemonium on their hands.
    Sucked in STEAM! lol .


      lol youre right RPs thinks it knows the right ways but those are the wrong ways because it has been educated stupid. the real truth is that cubes have FOUR SIDES which makes TWO ROTATIONS for EVERY NIGHT. That is the truth, as has been proven by me, DOCTOR OF MANY SCIENCES. OBAMA MUST STEP DOWN

      • Frank says:

        Thanks yours for that :)

        Though THE! truths has
        MORE!! RANDOMS, CAPITALIZATION and punctuation and
        lolzor but really are only as truths REALLY really rights to free speech.

  50. Dave L. says:

    Has Valve actually officially commented to any outlet about this whole thing? Because so far it looks like both the ‘we’re pulling the game from Greenlight’ e-mail and the ‘our bad, we’ll let you put it back’ e-mail are being quoted from Destructive Creations’ facebook page and not, y’know, a statement by Valve to the press.

    You’ve already commented on the curious (and not particularly professional) phrasing of the pull e-mail, and I find it highly suspect that Gabe Newell himself would write and send the apology e-mail for the reinstatement.

    Is it impossible that they pulled their own game and then resubmitted it, purely to drum up more controversy?