Retro censorship and anti-consumer practices

File: 67.png (13KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 560x407px

http://segaretro.org/Stormlord
Stormlord on Genesis had to be censored as well.

Before this thread gets invaded by console wars: Is there any major retro company that didn't do any kind of censorship or anti-consumer stuff?

>>3913974
Consoles were literally considered children's toys until very recently and America has a long history of censorship to perserve "Strong Christian Values".

Nintendo was going through in Japan what Atari went through in the states when the NES was released, so they made the draconian policies to make sure the NES wouldn't immediately be drown by knock-off homebrew shit.

Squaresoft ran to Sony because Sony was promising a land of milk and honey for devs who were getting pissed off at how Yamauchi was treating long-time partners to Nintendo. They left almost explicitly because Yamauchi told them that FFVII was full of too much garbage if it couldn't fit on an N64 cart.

Anti-Piracy, "censoring" a game because they didn't want to piss off the American legal system (Universal vs. Nintendo was a miracle victory and they didn't want to risk that shit again), not giving games a TV_Nihon translation, and leaving some games overseas isn't "anti-consumerism".

>>3914030
>not giving games a TV_Nihon translation, and leaving some games overseas isn't "anti-consumerism"

I disagree. Sticking gamers with a sub-par product, region-locking your hardware to prevent them from importing the original unedited software, and then having the nerve to charge USD$60 for an in-house Engrish transration is very much a slap in the face to your consumers.

>>3914068
I'm fairly certain that, back when you were 8 years old, you weren't crying because you weren't playing Final Fantasy IV in perfect Japanese.

Most people completely capable of reading Japanese just import everything if its that big of a problem.

>>3914120

Nice ad hominem. Try actually addressing the arguments in this thread instead of shit-flinging.

>>3913974
>anti-consumerism
WTF is this even supposed to mean?

>>3914137
waifufags and liberals getting mad that Nintendo censored their kiddie porn games because they don't understand what country they live in.

>>3914140
>what is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

>>3914147
Not relevant?

>>3914068
>Sticking gamers with a sub-par product
Most companies released either their best sellers or the games they assumed would sell the best in these regions.

>Region-Locking your hardware to prevent them from importing the original uneditied software
Again, with the NES, they were doing it to stop piracy, and you have to take into account that anything released in PAL back them would have run like shit using a NTSC game or hardware
>having the nerve to charge USD$60 for an in-house Engrish transration
You mean the price EVERYTHING was being released for? Anything that needed extensive translating was a time consuming process in and of itself and "working for video games" wasn't exactly what someone with a degree in translation work back in the 80s or 90s counted as a dream job.

>>3914147
the first amendment doesn't apply to shit like this retard

>>3914151
Censorship goes against the principle of free speech. Obscenity is not a valid argument detractor because it's inherently unobjective.

>>3914147
>Thinking First Amendment applies to children's entertainment or a product made outside of America.

Boy, do I sure remember all the cursing and nudity in Saturday Morning cartoons and Disney movies growing up.

Oh wait.

>>3914158
You have to be baiting now. Products were released to reach as large a market as possible and edited to do so. The first amendment doesn't enter in to it.

>>3914167
That doesn't mean you should cave in to the whims of soccer moms that get offended by anything.

>>3914178
Perhaps if you made a better argument than they did aside from "I can't be arsed to learn the language I'm angry this game was originally made in; please spoonfeed me", then something might get done about it.

In all honesty, you're still missing the point. These games are "censored" because leaving them uncensored would harm the marketability of the game. For instance, you can totally release an eroge in America; plenty of companies do. But don't expect it to be sold in stores. A game with the content of an eroge would get it an AO rating by the ESRB. No major retailer in the states will sell it because A.) They won't sell AO rated games and B.) They won't sell a game not rated by the ESRB. Even digital distribution tries to follow this, because it's way easier for Johnny Latchkey to buy Rondo Duo on Steam without his parents noticing.

>>3914147
>United States Constitution
And you think this applies to the content of private consumer products how, exactly? Did you even finish high school?

>>3914359
It has words and they think video games are art, so they demand that it can't be censored ever. It also never occurs to them that these are decisions made my the makers themselves and not a board of evil leftist (or right-wing, depending on who gamers think are oppressing them this election cycle) goons that demand that every game be altered to support their message or else.

>>3913998

>Stormlord

I don't even need to read the article to know what got censored.

>>3914317
No console company allows AO-rated games.
Only PC gets AO-rated games without censorship, and even then, they won't be sold in stores.
They can only be sold by online services that allow AO-rated games.
It was even a miracle how Hatred got sold on Steam. And many services like GOG won't allow that game only because it was rated AO.

And even in Japan, this isn't an exception.

You cannot sell eroge for consoles, only on PC, where any game can go unrated.

This is why many visual novels and dating sims are censored for their console release, because the original PC version had some eroge content that had to be censored.

>>3914154
>Most companies released either their best sellers or the games they assumed would sell the best in these regions.
This wasn't a response to my point. These releases were chopped up, censored and terribly translated, hence "sub-par" - something that you did not address at all.

>Again, with the NES, they were doing it to stop piracy
There are other ways to deter piracy, and Game Boy didn't enforce any manner of region protection.

We're also not discussing NES games specifically. Nintendo's practice of region-locking continued well into other generations when Nintendo was simultaneously enforcing DRM schemes to combat piracy, thus making region-locking unnecessary. This wholly falls under the definition of anti-consumer, and Nintendo has been thoroughly criticized for it.

>you have to take into account that anything released in PAL back them would have run like shit using a NTSC game or hardware
What does this have to do with this thread? I live in a region that uses NTSC standards.

>Anything that needed extensive translating was a time consuming process in and of itself
Most translations back in the early generations of gaming were done in-house - i.e. by native Japanese speakers, many of whom had a rather poor grasp of English. This was done to cut corners on the cost of localization.

Let me also add that manufacturing costs were additionally reduced by sourcing out to Mexico and China, leaving us with flimsy packaging. Games manufactured in Japan for Japanese audiences are very sturdy by comparison, and usually include more detailed instructions and other supplements. As a result, the average cost of Japanese media is more expensive than what one might pay in the U.S., but not much more so.

So paying USD$60 for a poorly cobbled together translation with heavy censorship and flimsy packaging is hardly appropriate, no matter how you spin it.

>>3914432
>anti-consumer
There's that word again. Could you please explain what this means? Why would a for-profit company operating in the free market, willingly make products less attractive to their intended buyers? Because that's what it sounds like you're purporting.

>>3914589
>Could you please explain what this means?
It means Nintendo doesn't give a shit what specific elements of its consumer base wants. e.g. Continuing to develop games like Federation Force despite Metroid fans widely panning it before release, ignoring consumers who complain about hardware flaws, ignoring consumers who complain about censorship practices or arbitrary localization changes, etc.

>Why would a for-profit company operating in the free market, willingly make products less attractive to their intended buyers?
Because Nintendo's consumer base is diverse enough that the company's anti-consumer practices don't actually affect profits or shareholders. i.e. Soccer moms are still buying up Nintendo games and merchandise with no understanding of the corporation's ethics beyond the fact that Nintendo has a "family friendly" reputation. Meanwhile, the devoted fans of Nintendo IPs like Metroid or Zelda just have to suck it up and tolerate it when Nintendo ignores their pleas not to censor something or lock them out of importing.

>>3914030
Why is it that the freedom for anyone to make games for popular platforms killed the American industry but was the key to the success of the European industry? Is it because of how corporatised the American industry was?

someone post the Yamauchi is an oni pasta.

File: Ignorance_Is_Bliss[2].jpg (24KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 267x200px

This all goes way WAY back to the Comics Code. In the USA, publishers of fictional works are expected to self-censor in accordance with current societal values. That's how it works in the USA. If you're still trying to ride the far-left train and retroactively crucify a publisher like Sega for deciding it was best for some nothing character in PSII (a game I love but have no memory of this character) to be less of a faggot then I'm pleased to remind you that train is pulling into it's final stop real soon.

Shenmue 2 just turned a fag into woman you stupid nigger. And even then the censorship 25 years ago was done out of necessity because games were toys.

>>3914621
>Continuing to develop games like Federation Force despite Metroid fans widely panning it before release
>ignoring consumers who complain about censorship practices or arbitrary localization changes, etc
Like it or not, those don't fall under anti-consumer at all. Anti-consumer practices usually boil down into monopolistic practices: stifling competition, heavy DRM, region locking etc. Forcing customers (and developers) to not have a choice when all the while putting things in place that benefit the business more than anything else.

Shit business decisions like releasing X game instead of Y, moreorless forced censorship (trying to discredit the soccer moms and video games cause violence idiocy is silly) in order to better market a game, etc. doesn't count.

>>3915224
>stifling competition
Nintendo did this in the past with its restrictive licensing policies, having been taken to court many times over the issue.

>heavy DRM, region locking
Nintendo still does this today.

I'm not going to debate your interpretation of "anti-consumer" to exclude censorship since that's like your opinion, man. But we otherwise seem to be in agreement that Nintendo is anti-consumer.

>>3915323
Sorry, I should have mentioned it before I jumped in but: I'm not the same guy you were talking to.

I just think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. There's behavior that's standard business and then there's anti-consumer behavior. Don't forget the political climate at the time.

It's perfectly fair for a company to want a certain image be attached to them and avoid controversy that everyone knows they will get if they allow X, Y and/or Z. You can't get upset at a company for not catering to you and call that anti-consumer.

>I'm not going to debate your interpretation of "anti-consumer" to exclude censorship since that's like your opinion, man. But we otherwise seem to be in agreement that Nintendo is anti-consumer.
You're right.

>>3914650
>gays are wrong!!
>says the tripfag
Youre the biggest homo here
Fuck off with your shit you loser

>>3913974
I don't see why it matters when you can just get a translation patch these days in seconds.

>>3914650
>Comics Code
>not the Hays Code

>>3915387
The normalization of aberrant behavior is degeneracy. Tolerance is fine. Would I personally have been offended or scarred had OP's nothing piano teacher character instructor character been gayer? No. Would I have even noticed when I was 12? Probably not. However, I've had about enough of the radical leftist agenda and so has most of the US.

File: US won.png (14KB, 520x239px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 520x239px

>>3913974
I've noticed that near the release of new consoles games from those eras get less censored. Maybe that's just me though, anyone else feel this way?

Personally I just ignore. I don't approve of the censoring of media the unfortunate truth is that most of these games we love have no alternative. Also let's be honest, censorship barely matters outside of jrpgs. Outside of those censorship is basically never effecting story, since other then rpgs most games don't use story as a selling point. Even as a fan of jrpgs this really isn't that big of a problem for most games. Nothing we can do about unless your that autistic and need to to learn Japanese to play a genre of video games.

>>3915323
>Nintendo still does this today
But that's wrong

>>3914380
i'm not arguing one way or the other (because duh, NoA has a right to make choices over their target audience—though their policies may have cost them FF, etc. to sony), but history looks unfavorably to censorship.

not that sega or ninty games are comparable to shakespeare, but remember bowlder's "family shakespeare?" it was hugely popular at the time, but now its author has gone down as a laughingstock in the footnotes of history. also, some english VA is godawful.

>>3913974
>In retrospect, I'm really not sure which was the more anti-consumer company, Sega or Nintendo
Definitely Nintendo.

>>3914621

Being such a devoted fan of a company you hold so much vitriol for makes you what exactly...?

If Nintendo is screwing you over so hard, maybe stop playing their games. Problem solved. You frankly sound like you have Stockholm Syndrome. Can't stop yourself crawling back for more Nintendo IP exclusives no matter how much abuse you seem to think they heap on you.