Welp.
We will absolutely NOT be censoring Ion Fury or any of our other games, now or in the future, including but not limited to by removing gags such as gaming’s most controversial facial wash.
We do not support censorship of creative works of any kind and regret our initial decision to alter a sprite in the game instead of trusting our instincts. 3D Realms and Voidpoint stand together on this matter.
Yeah, they’re morons.
Is George Broussard still at the helm there?
Didn’t they take this bold stance with Shadow Warrior too?
I’d be more excited if I actually wanted to play the game.
Lol, yeah. Admittedly, it wasn’t HARD to hit the remove button since I don’t like it either way.
man, what a crappy image preview
LMAO, these guys are PR masters! What a disaster.
Should’ve just stayed quiet and taken the PR company’s advice. This whole thing kicked off after a Voidpoint team member criticized and demanded more evidence from a poster on Resetera with a screenshot of a developer using the phrase “SJW” back in 2018 on their Discord channel. They were concerned it was being presented as representative of a wider cultural problem at the studio. Said evidence was discovered, another developer went to Twitter in attempt to do damage control, which didn’t help, flip flopping occurred, and now with the publisher co-signing this anti-censorship statement, the damage done to both parties is likely irreparable.
Also, no, George Broussard hasn’t been associated with 3D Realms since SDN Invest bought them in 2014. Scott Miller’s still there, though.
So what happens to the donation they pledged to make in the previous apology statement?
Still happening.
Polygon has an article up:
I take back my earlier comments that these guys were at least making a not-terrible response to the situation.
What a bunch of bozos. First, it’s not censorship. There’s no government entity forcing them to do anything. It’s the market speaking. You know, the thing conservatives love to fellate? Yeah, that. Second, the only thing worse than PR moves that piss off some of your customers is flip-flopping so you piss off all of your customers.
Fuck 'em. Wasn’t going to buy the game anyhow, though I had thought about when it got to five bucks. But, nah.
I was definitely thinking of getting it, but now, hey, one less game on my wishlist.
I disagree that censorship per se is only possible when “a government” prevents speech; private entities are certainly capable of censorship. A bunch of people deciding not to buy something does not, I think, constitute censorship, but the developer choosing to suppress the included message would, even if I personally wouldn’t care that it is happening.
This is, to be kind, nonsense. Certainly in the context of US constitutional law it’s nonsense. Even in a broader sense, though, unless you are willing to put forth the idea that any decision to not publish/promulgate something, in the face of any opposition, is censorship, which is manifestly absurd, there’s no real reason to call a developer decision to not include something some people dislike “censorship.” You can say it’s a bad move, or a good move, but it simply is not censorship. You would have to prove extralegal coercion at the very least, though I stick by my formal definition of censorship as something that has to have the force of the state behind it. Otherwise, it’s just market pressure.
Unless you are going to argue that any time an entity decides to change something because people complain, that’s censorship, I can’t see how a case like this could even remotely be considered censorship. Saying “we will never censor our games” or whatnot is meaningless and idiotic, considering every thing in a game is the result of choices; some things are in, some are out. What they mean to say perhaps is, “we will never bow to public pressure to change anything,” which is another thing entirely, and in that case the market will decide whether they are making a good or bad choice.
I don’t think that’s kind at all, because you may disagree with it but it’s not nonsense. But don’t hold back on my account.
The censorship in question is of course the company’s suppression of the speech of whoever put that message in there in the first place. Again, I don’t care about this particular instance, but if, say, the message was pro-union I certainly would, regardless of whether or not it was legal. The fact that there was an outcry has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and neither does constitutional law.
I’m trying to keep the conversation non-personal, so when I say “nonsense” i literally mean, I find the sentiment nonsensical. Perhaps it is just me, as you infer. So be it. But I struggle, mightily, to find any hint of censorship in a company controlling what an employee puts into a work the company creates. The idea that workers at a company have a right to determine what the product is–in the absence of any negotiated binding labor contract, at least, one that specifies such a right (and which no company I think would ever agree to)–seems, again, literally nonsensical. The developer as an entity controls what goes out. That includes making decisions as to who gets final say in what goes in to the product, and what those things might be. There is no conceivable scenario here that could be called censorship unless you approach it from a quite radical anarchist-type viewpoint that totally denies the rights of owners of businesses to control their product.
Do you sincerely believe workers at a company have a natural or inherent right to express themselves as they see fit in their employer’s product, without their employer’s acquiescence? That…has never been my experience in over three decades as a professional.
We have a right to not be censored by the government, that doesn’t mean you can’t be censored by someone else or that if you are, you have the same rights.
I think it’s tricky to talk about though because many people jump to censorship as something that by definition is also against their rights. That’s only true in some cases (like government).
