Slashdot Mirror
Sony Cracks Down On Sexually Explicit Content In Games (engadget.com)
Slashdot reader xavdeman writes: Hot on the heels of its announcement of the specifications of the next PlayStation, Sony has revealed a new crackdown on explicit content. Citing "the rise of the #MeToo movement" and a concern of "legal and social action" in the USA, Sony has said it wants to address concerns about the depiction of women in video games playable on its platform as well as protect children's "sound growth and development." The new rules were reportedly already responsible for puritan cutscene alterations in the Western PS4 release of the multi-platform title Devil May Cry 5, where lens flares were used to cover up partial nudity.
Except now it's done by the "liberals". But essentially, it's back to a puritan state with enhanced surveillance technology.
This completely dismisses the parental responsibility to use ESRB ratings. Kids with shitty parents who ignore the ratings aren't going to be saved because Sony said "no boobs" to developers.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Always amusing to see a company both figuratively and literally covering their asses at the same time.
Here's an example of the vile and shocking "sexually explicit content" that Sony had to censor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nupFJPaAn9s
Most of the other examples of Sony's PS4 censorship are equally absurd. It should be noted that Sony moved their headquarters to California, which is why we're getting these utterly deranged decisions.
Of course, there's a simple solution - don't buy anything from Sony.
However, if Sony doesn't have the infrastructure and procedures in place to protect children as they'd like and still offer the material, it's up to them to remove it.
You almost had it. Here:
However, if Sony doesn't have the infrastructure and procedures in place to protect children as they'd like and still offer the material, it's up to [[THE PARENTS]] to remove it [[from their children's reach]]
>>> Citing "the rise of the #MeToo movement" and a concern of "legal and social action" in the USA ...
Because no woman, anywhere in the USA, also enjoys nudity and sex. /s
Because a girl or guy in a skimpy outfit vs not skimpy outfit while impaling another character with their sword is the same as a fist pounding someone's ass. Thanks for the education. Parental control is exactly that. PARENTS CONTROLLING THEIR KIDS. Not the media being controlled by SJW or any other knee jerking triggered idiot. This is simply the eradication of provocative material for the mistaken attempt at controlling sexual behavior or misbehavior as defined by a minority of religious zealots. It's not up for Sony to remove or censor it. It's up to you to not buy the game for their kid if you find it offensive. Why don't we just go ahead and whitewash all material. Why is graphical material always the target? What is in pictures or moving pictures that people trigger so easily when written word is rarely (but still) banned. A ton of females read very graphical sexual novels but we're supposed to believe they are harmed or feel ashamed because some other girls decide to be depicted showing their skin/human shape. It's bullshit. Animals go naked every day with their schlongs hanging out and hump each other in front of each other. We're the only species to cry about it when we even see a glimpse of it. Like we're some precious frigging fragile beings that can't handle our own breeding/hormonal stimulation from visuals.
That's power-fantasy objectification though, not sexual objectification.
Ask yourself (better yet, ask your women friends) - are Conan the Barbarian, Superman, etc. characters created for men to fantasize about being, or for women to fantasize about fucking? Then ask yourself the same (gender-flipped) question about the women portrayed in the same medium.
The two fantasies tend to be very different, and you only need to look at the target audience (and gender of the character designers) to get a pretty good idea which it is.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Is it unheard of for women wanting to be what men want to look at? (not that they'd ever admit to it.)
i'd wager basketball shorts and a loose fitting T-shirt are JUST as comfortable as yoga pants and a halter top.
(inb4 weak ass incel comments.)
You actually enjoy censored games?
I'll stick wihh my "pc elitism" then, you enjoy your censored nanny box
Scantily clad women in irl slutwalk: Good
Scantily clad women in vidya games: Bad
So the skin factor isn't the honest reason. I think it might just be jealousy. Them well-poportioend polygons, man...
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
To protect children's "sound growth and development" Sony is going to censor content deemed to be too sexy on their Playstation platform.
While, at the same time, titles with a violence level right off the charts like:
Hitman
Grand Theft Auto
Mortal Kombat
Manhunt
seem to be just fine for the same audience ?
( Good thing Timmy can't see any video game skin, imagine the mental trauma it would cause. Now go eviscerate that Dark Elf ! They deserve it ! :| )
Both Violence / Gore and Sexual Themes are designed for the Mature Audiences ( hence the M rating ).
If you really want to protect children's "sound growth and development", be a fucking parent.
Understand what the M rating is and make the decision to let your kids play it or not.
If you're too lazy to actually be a parent, perhaps you shouldn't engage in activities that create the conditions where you become one in the first place.
I think Conan is created for both fantasies, just as Barbie is. I also think you are being sexist in assuming women do not fantasise about being beautiful and don't fantasise about well built men. And vice versa.
Yeah. One make a fuss and one let me wank in peace.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Given that many female video game characters are created by women your point is wrong.
Given that many female video game characters are enjoyed and welcomed by women your point is wrong.
Given that sexy women in video games are supposedly taboo yet are no more sexualised than the apparently perfectly acceptable male characters in the same fucking games, your point is wrong.
It's just people determined to take offence getting irate that they're not in control of someone else's hobby. Fuck them.
There are a few reasonable sex-positive egalitarians left in the world who still embrace the term "SJW" as a self-descriptor, but they don't yet realize they are in the minority. You may be one of them; I don't know. I haven't seen particularly egregious out of you, but I've not been paying super close attention.
Expressing regret is not intended to shame anyone.
Yes it most likely is. Women tend to rely more on implication than men, particularly techie men.
And even if there was no intended undertone there, even if they have nothing but the purest of feelings for women who participate in wet t-shirt contests and love it, as self-decribed progressive women who are ostensibly holding themselves up as role models (a fairly obvious implicit part of their narrative that young girls are lacking good role models), they're being (at best) extremely reckless. They should be aware of the value judgments they are vocalizing.
It's been years since I read the interviews, but as I recall neither one said "oh, I regret doing that because *personally*, I didn't really want to do it but I let myself get talked into it anyway." It was no, this is *inherently* objectifying and bad.
Have you ever talked down a mortified drunk girl after she's putting her shirt back on at a party? I have. More than once, in fact. And it was pretty clear to me that it wasn't the presence of males that bring out this feeling of embarrassment and regret. If she's not regretful, the guys go "woooo" and she goes "woooo" and life is good. It's only when there's a group of girls (and/or their boyfriends) there that don't go "woo" and she catches a look on their faces that leads to her regret.
(Don't come back at me with some anecdote about a girl who was assaulted at a party. Yes that happens and it's a major problem that needs better pushing back against. But it's totally beside the point. Assault is assault and yes that can lead to shame, but "slut shaming" is something quite different.)
That is not the thing they are complaining about. It's the coercion, the Weinsteins, the "sorry but to advance your career as an actor you are going to have to get your tits out".
The movie Yeardley Smith was topless in was a nothing of a shit independent film (and not of an artsy sort) that did nothing for her career.
More importantly, the wet T-shirt contest Kristen Schaal participated had nothing whatsoever to do with her career. She didn't give some big story about being pressured into it or impressing someone or anything. She just said man, that was such an objectifying thing to do, I wish I hadn't done it. In what way does that not pass value judgment on the hundreds of thousands if not millions of women who've let loose and had fun in a wet t-shirt contest at some point? If you don't think that's a value judgment, man you don't understand how women typically interact.
Complaining about the coercive casting couch is fine. Cultural slut shaming is not. There is widespread demand for sexually suggestive media because this is both an accurate reflection of reality and it caters to basic human hungers. If wom