[PC/Mac/Linux] Firewatch - £6.79 - Gog.com
36°Expired

[PC/Mac/Linux] Firewatch - £6.79 - Gog.com

Editor 46
Editor
Found 14th Sep 2017
Chances are we'll see a £6.79 price on Steam at 6pm. It's currently reduced by 55% on Gog.com

It's a really highly rated game, but I'm not sure how much at the moment with PewDiePie and Campo Santo having their back and forth with the DMCA threats and what have you? It's certainly not going too well on Steam, where it's currently being 'review bombed'

2789903-FVysQ.jpg
Anyway...about the game.

Firewatch is a single-player first-person mystery set in the Wyoming wilderness. The year is 1989. You are a man named Henry who has retreated from his messy life to work as a fire lookout in the Wyoming wilderness. Perched high atop a mountain, it’s your job to look for smoke and keep the wilderness safe. An especially hot, dry summer has everyone on edge. Your supervisor Delilah is available to you at all times over a small, handheld radio—your only contact with the world you've left behind. But when something strange draws you out of your lookout tower and into the forest, you’ll explore a wild and unknown environment, facing questions and making choices that can build or destroy the only meaningful relationship you have.
A Note: Firewatch is a video game about adults having adult conversations about adult things. If you plan on playing with a younger gamer, that might be good to know going in.

  • A stunningly beautiful wilderness environment that expands as you explore.
  • A tailor-made story: the choices you make shape the narrative and build relationships.
  • An edge-of-your-seat mystery.
  • Secrets and discoveries to be made over every hill.
  • Living, breathing characters brought to life by Cissy Jones (The Walking Dead: Season 1) and Rich Sommer (Mad Men)
  • A spectacular wilderness environment by Olly Moss (Illustrator) and Jane Ng (The Cave, Brutal Legend)
  • A thrilling story and script by Sean Vanaman and Jake Rodkin (The Walking Dead: Season 1, Poker Night at the Inventory)
  • A stirring original soundtrack by Chris Remo (Gone Home)
  • Fluid first-person animation by James Benson (Ori & The Blind Forest)
  • Gameplay scripting and design work by Patrick Ewing (Twitter) and Nels Anderson (Mark of the Ninja)
  • Programming by Will Armstrong (Bioshock II), Ben Burbank (Costume Quest 2, Space Base DF-9), and Paolo Surricchio (Deadpool, Call of Duty Advanced Warfare)
Community Updates
  1. GOG.com Deals
Groups

    Groups

    46 Comments
    Looks like it expired, not sure why.
    Original Poster Editor
    Moonky47 s ago

    Looks like it expired, not sure why.


    Well that is strange.
    £14.99 on GOG using the link.......
    14.99 on the page
    Buzz... What's happening at 6pm?
    Looks like an interesting game. They deserve all the review bombing they get. Pewdiepie said a bad word, apologised, and instead of accepting it, what we used to call the 'right on', the SJW intersectional collectivists tried to destroy him, again.

    You mess with the bull, you get the horns.
    Original Poster Editor
    prankster1011 m ago

    Buzz... What's happening at 6pm?


    I have no idea. Gog dropped Firewatch to £6.79 so I expected the same on Steam at 6pm.

    Must have been a #Misprice
    BuzzDuraband3 m ago

    I have no idea. Gog dropped Firewatch to £6.79 so I expected the same on …I have no idea. Gog dropped Firewatch to £6.79 so I expected the same on Steam at 6pm.Must have been a #Misprice


    Do you think the developers will cancel the purchase ala XBox One?

    Original Poster Editor
    prankster10141 s ago

    Do you think the developers will cancel the purchase ala XBox One?;)


    It's uncool to say anything positive about Campo Santo, so - yes
    cheapo18 m ago

    Looks like an interesting game. They deserve all the review bombing they …Looks like an interesting game. They deserve all the review bombing they get. Pewdiepie said a bad word, apologised, and instead of accepting it, what we used to call the 'right on', the SJW intersectional collectivists tried to destroy him, again.You mess with the bull, you get the horns.


    I can't find the Ignore button on the new HUKD layout
    johnthehuman26 m ago

    I can't find the Ignore button on the new HUKD layout


    Click the profile pick then the three dots to the right of the badges and then 'mute member'.
    cheapo51 m ago

    Looks like an interesting game. They deserve all the review bombing they …Looks like an interesting game. They deserve all the review bombing they get. Pewdiepie said a bad word, apologised, and instead of accepting it, what we used to call the 'right on', the SJW intersectional collectivists tried to destroy him, again.You mess with the bull, you get the horns.


    I haven't seen the recent reviews on Steam, but did watch this recent video on Youtube by "Some Black Guy" the other day:

    johnthehuman45 m ago

    I can't find the Ignore button on the new HUKD layout


    You mean, "I don't like what you said but rather than engage you in debate I wanted to passive aggressively say that I am going to ignore you."

    If we all ignored what offended us, rather than try and ban/destroy those that say the things that offend, then this storm in a tea cup would have already been forgotten about.

    They (the perpetually offended) should take a leaf out of your book.

    :sad face:
    prankster10122 m ago

    I haven't seen the recent reviews on Steam, but did watch this recent …I haven't seen the recent reviews on Steam, but did watch this recent video on Youtube by "Some Black Guy" the other day:[Video]



    This is exactly how people should react. We have gone from 'sticks and stones will break my bones' to 'words are violence and the same as physical violence.' Quelle surprise! Sean Vanaman is a middle class white (in more ways than one) knight who needs to protect the downtrodden. Jog on mate.
    cheapo10 m ago

    This is exactly how people should react. We have gone from 'sticks and …This is exactly how people should react. We have gone from 'sticks and stones will break my bones' to 'words are violence and the same as physical violence.' Quelle surprise! Sean Vanaman is a middle class white (in more ways than one) knight who needs to protect the downtrodden. Jog on mate.


    I don't know... I used to work in a videogames store about 15 years ago where the majority of the music played was centered around hip hop gangster rap that focused on calling people Nggr and btch after every few sentences. 8 hours of that every day for nearly two years... I must have missed something back then.
    Edited by: "prankster101" 14th Sep 2017
    SVRich36 m ago

    Click the profile pick then the three dots to the right of the badges and …Click the profile pick then the three dots to the right of the badges and then 'mute member'.


    Much appreciated.

    On the other hand a decent game with good voice work and story. Just not sure I enjoyed the ending.
    cheapo3 h, 10 m ago

    You mean, "I don't like what you said but rather than engage you in debate …You mean, "I don't like what you said but rather than engage you in debate I wanted to passive aggressively say that I am going to ignore you."If we all ignored what offended us, rather than try and ban/destroy those that say the things that offend, then this storm in a tea cup would have already been forgotten about. They (the perpetually offended) should take a leaf out of your book. :sad face:


    I'll debate if you like. I'm curious why you've equated a developer exercising their right to restrict broadcasting of their IP, to some kind of imaginary moral war on offending people?

    I'd like it if devs did this more often, so streamers and "content creators" who act so entitled, get a small notion of how copyright and broadcasting laws actually work.
    Edited by: "johnthehuman" 14th Sep 2017
    johnthehuman46 m ago

    I'll debate of you like. I'm curious why you've equated a developer …I'll debate of you like. I'm curious why you've equated a developer exercising their right to restrict broadcasting of their IP, to some kind of imaginary moral war on offending people? I'd like it if devs did this more often, so streamers and "content creators" who act so entitled, get a small notion of how copyright and broadcasting laws actually work.


    I am glad you have bitten. It's nice have a bit of a chat isn't it?

    From the Firewatch webpage, firewatchgame.com/about/

    "Can I stream this game? Can I make money off of those streams?

    Yes. We love that people stream and share their experiences in the game. You are free to monetize your videos as well."

    Pewdiepie wasn't even playing the damn game when he made his faux pas. The "copyright owner" just wanted to virtue signal on twitter to gain some cred.

    So, the copyright strike contravenes precisely the content of the website, which is by the way an affidavit, making the DMCA request legally spurious. Your move.
    You're playing a cracking game of Fedora Tipping Neckbeard Bingo btw, "SJW" "intersectional collectivists", "virtue signalling".

    There is nothing legally spurious about requesting someone take down a video which contains content you own. It's basic Intellectual Property law. What they write on a website doesn't overrule the fact that they own it. The statement you quoted doesn't pass ownership of the content to any Tom Dick or Harry who feels like streaming their game.

    As the owner of the IP, they can choose to giveth and taketh away as they see fit. The EULA in the game supercedes any casual mention of streaming / broadcasting on the website.

    Finally, suggesting that someone using the N word as a "go-to" slur is merely a faux-pas says a lot about you.
    Edited by: "johnthehuman" 14th Sep 2017
    johnthehuman1 h, 17 m ago

    You're playing a cracking game of Fedora Tipping Neckbeard Bingo btw, …You're playing a cracking game of Fedora Tipping Neckbeard Bingo btw, "SJW" "intersectional collectivists", "virtue signalling". There is nothing legally spurious about requesting someone take down a video which contains content you own. It's basic Intellectual Property law. What they write on a website doesn't overrule the fact that they own it. The statement you quoted doesn't pass ownership of the content to any Tom Dick or Harry who feels like streaming their game. As the owner of the IP, they can choose to giveth and taketh away as they see fit. The EULA in the game supercedes any casual mention of streaming / broadcasting on the website.Finally, suggesting that someone using the N word as a "go-to" slur is merely a faux-pas says a lot about you.


    I enjoyed the fedora comment, m'lady! And by the way, I find it offensive that you degraded me using words, so I have filed a report to this website (joke).

    I didn't say it passed on intellectual ownership of the product, so don't straw man me. Making a written statement explicitly stating that anyone can use the game for streaming or monetizing, then filing a DMCA notice because of something a streamer said on a different video that had nothing to do with your IP has nothing to do with protecting copyright, and everything to do with trying to wield whatever power one has to try and attack someone because of ideological bias. Do they have the right to do it? Yes. Did they do it because they felt their copyright was being infringed upon? No. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

    It was a faux pas. It is not his 'go to' word, as can be judged by his many videos. He apologised. Pewdiepie is popular because of his personality and sense of humour, and innate goodness that shines through. However, he is not politically correct, and likes to jibe at totemic pillars of political correctness. Was Graham Chapman a racist fascist when he remarked 'tell them we're Jewish" when the Auschwitz guards who were denying access to see the camp? Was Mel Brooks a Racist when he wrote that "The Sheriff is a Nee?" Was Chris Morris racist when he said "what about people who are less Middle class than me like builders or blacks for example?" when explaining that he was intelligent enough to take heroin in Brass Eye? The thought police that now pervades the internet and a large portion of the mainstream media would consider this hate speech. I do not.

    It was a faux pas, in the literal definition of the phrase. He apologised and people over reacted. It is a word, not a physical act. Context matters not the arrangement of letters. He didn't set out to hurt anyone or castigate an entire race. A stupid word slipped out on a livestream (not an edited video) and he is sorry.

    If you believe it was any more than that, and believe his motives to be less than pure, that says more about you than it does my understanding of a man who apologises for one regrettable utterance.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
    It's a lot simpler than you're making out though.

    He chose that word, he chose to call someone that for doing something wrong.

    In my opinion, it's just one example of many of a really dislikeable character.

    I don't think the dev chose to issue a DMCA to make a point about this particular incident. I think it's a culmination of a lot of things. It's interesting to read their point of view too; they didn't want this childish personality making any more money off their hard work. In my mind, that's fair enough, and like I said at the start, I kind of hope it provokes more devs to think about how they allow their games to be used.
    So PDP addresses some of the above:



    Interesting to see the like / dislike ratio...
    Edited by: "prankster101" 14th Sep 2017
    Interesting to hear his point, coz he clearly knows the law, and is wary that his job and his livelihood rely on taking copywrite-d content and monetising it.

    "I could fight it, and I'd probably win, but I'm not going to bother" <- argument of a child.

    It's not fair use, you're not allowed to broadcast games. Simple. It's not a grey area. Devs ignore it because it brings them some revenue. As soon they decide otherwise, they can exercise their right to have them taken down. I don't see why it's causing so much debate.

    Biggest streamers on Twitch have ~ 30k subs, and there's only a handful of them, most streamers have a lot less.

    Games sell millions of copies. Devs don't need streamers / let's play-ers. They should stop acting like they're needed.
    johnthehuman1 h, 30 m ago

    Interesting to hear his point, coz he clearly knows the law, and is wary …Interesting to hear his point, coz he clearly knows the law, and is wary that his job and his livelihood rely on taking copywrite-d content and monetising it. "I could fight it, and I'd probably win, but I'm not going to bother" <- argument of a child.


    Much like the 'Oh sheesh, I wish I could work out how to block annoying people using this new interface?'. Very childish. I'll tell you what childish is, specifically and overtly using twitter as your bully pulpit making all sorts of threats and trying to get an army to bring Pewdiepie's channel down.It is bullying of the highest order. The guy is a jerk. Listen to the tone of Pewdiepie's response. It is fair, reasoned, and trying to be amicable, because that's the type of guy he is, unlike this bully Sean.
    johnthehuman1 h, 30 m ago

    It's not fair use, you're not allowed to broadcast games. Simple. It's not …It's not fair use, you're not allowed to broadcast games. Simple. It's not a grey area. Devs ignore it because it brings them some revenue. As soon they decide otherwise, they can exercise their right to have them taken down. I don't see why it's causing so much debate. Biggest streamers on Twitch have ~ 30k subs, and there's only a handful of them, most streamers have a lot less. Games sell millions of copies. Devs don't need streamers / let's play-ers. They should stop acting like they're needed.


    It's not simple you fool. Read the damn page on the Firewatch website where it gives EXPRESS permission! The 30k Twitter sub thing again is disingenuous. Why didn't you quote YouTube subs? Oh right, because quoting millions of followers and views would make your argument that they are not influencers weak. EA for instance, flies out and fully comps streamers like Battlefrontupdates and JackFrags to the other side of the world to stream, and commentate on upcoming titles. The reason? Publishers know that having real fans talk to real fans is way better publicity than direct advertising. Do the YouTubers make money too? Yes, why not? the whole thing is mutually beneficial. Your argument seems to be being made from the point of jealousy and of animus to Pewdiepie himself. Shame.

    johnthehuman2 h, 50 m ago

    It's a lot simpler than you're making out though.He chose that word, he …It's a lot simpler than you're making out though.He chose that word, he chose to call someone that for doing something wrong. In my opinion, it's just one example of many of a really dislikeable character. I don't think the dev chose to issue a DMCA to make a point about this particular incident. I think it's a culmination of a lot of things. It's interesting to read their point of view too; they didn't want this childish personality making any more money off their hard work. In my mind, that's fair enough, and like I said at the start, I kind of hope it provokes more devs to think about how they allow their games to be used.


    No it isn't simple, as I have just illustrated. You don't think the dev did it because of the use of that word? You are being disingenuous to try and defend your increasingly weak position. Perhaps, the straw that broke the leftists camels back, yes. But either way, this was no move to protect copyright. It was an act designed to gang up and bully Pewdiepie into non existence. The devs that start hammering known and loved YouTubers with DMCA request or mere cease and desist will see boycotts back against them and damage limitation will kick in. Think about it, one publisher starts attacking streamers for streaming 'Call of Duty clone X'. The publisher next door to gain advantage does (as Firewatch has already done) the opposite and encourages it and Call of Duty Clone Y becomes a success. I do actually forsee a lawsuit if this rubbish continues. It is a grey area (when websites like Firewatch don't overtly sanction the use and monetization of their product).

    If this goes your way, interesting creative people will move onto platforms where the DMCA finds it harder to reach and you can watch cat, makeup, and adverts to your hearts content. Now (and I am being super condescending here, and I mean it that way hence this is why it sounds so), think about your response. Don't grasp for more evidence. Think, could you be wrong about this?
    johnthehuman6 h, 40 m ago

    Interesting to hear his point, coz he clearly knows the law, and is wary …Interesting to hear his point, coz he clearly knows the law, and is wary that his job and his livelihood rely on taking copywrite-d content and monetising it. "I could fight it, and I'd probably win, but I'm not going to bother" <- argument of a child. It's not fair use, you're not allowed to broadcast games. Simple. It's not a grey area. Devs ignore it because it brings them some revenue. As soon they decide otherwise, they can exercise their right to have them taken down. I don't see why it's causing so much debate. Biggest streamers on Twitch have ~ 30k subs, and there's only a handful of them, most streamers have a lot less. Games sell millions of copies. Devs don't need streamers / let's play-ers. They should stop acting like they're needed.

    Everything else you've mentioned can be debated, but the last bit is factually wrong. Devs do need streamers and "Let's Players" - for exposure. Check out sales for the Skate franchise after PDP played it.

    In the grand scheme of things, PDP helped sales and exposure of the title immensely - especially as it's a no-name indie.
    Edited by: "prankster101" 15th Sep 2017
    I can't quote and respond to all of that, but...

    if you think PDP is genuinely a nice guy in that vid, you need to watch it again.

    Firstly he condescendingly doesn't pronounce Sean's surname when reading out his tweet. Secondly he goes on to subtley slag off Firewatch as a walking aim. Yes he says he enjoyed the game, but he's made a living out of being quite good at being subtley nasty.

    The statement on the website isn't express consent, but even if it was, the IP owner can still choose to revoke the right to broadcast their work at any point. For whatever reason.

    Let's Play-ers and Streamers are easy advertising for new games yes, but they're not required. This whole shenanigans does prove however why game devs have allowed it; personalities on the internet have a cult-like following.

    I like Sean's point; he acknowledges that maybe it's time for that to change, and devs shouldn't lazily rely on YouTubers to advertise their games, when it gives revenue to people like PDP I happen to have agreed with this, since way before this incident.
    johnthehuman27 m ago

    I can't quote and respond to all of that, but... if you think PDP is …I can't quote and respond to all of that, but... if you think PDP is genuinely a nice guy in that vid, you need to watch it again. Firstly he condescendingly doesn't pronounce Sean's surname when reading out his tweet. Secondly he goes on to subtley slag off Firewatch as a walking aim. Yes he says he enjoyed the game, but he's made a living out of being quite good at being subtley nasty. The statement on the website isn't express consent, but even if it was, the IP owner can still choose to revoke the right to broadcast their work at any point. For whatever reason. Let's Play-ers and Streamers are easy advertising for new games yes, but they're not required. This whole shenanigans does prove however why game devs have allowed it; personalities on the internet have a cult-like following.I like Sean's point; he acknowledges that maybe it's time for that to change, and devs shouldn't lazily rely on YouTubers to advertise their games, when it gives revenue to people like PDP I happen to have agreed with this, since way before this incident.

    I just look at the like/dislike ratio, and read the YT comments. Most people in this case are supporting PDP and condemning the FW dev.
    Most people watching PDP videos, support PDP?

    31990337-jtB1q.jpg

    It's also IP law, so it's thankfully irrelevant what "the majority" of people think.
    This is part of the Cult of YouTubers that I mentioned earlier.

    I can't wait for the day when we can pick and choose which laws to follow based on popular opinion!
    Edited by: "johnthehuman" 15th Sep 2017
    johnthehuman1 h, 30 m ago

    Most people watching PDP videos, support PDP? [Image] It's also IP law, so …Most people watching PDP videos, support PDP? [Image] It's also IP law, so it's thankfully irrelevant what "the majority" of people think.This is part of the Cult of YouTubers that I mentioned earlier. I can't wait for the day when we can pick and choose which laws to follow based on popular opinion!

    Well, PDP has accrued over 1.5 million views in less than 24hrs. Probably the same amount of sales that FW has had over its lifetime. I'd say that PDP is more relevant, and that people support him more in the grand scheme of things.

    Not saying he was right to use those words, but the outrage hasn't done any harm to his viewership. He's only gained more subscribers.

    And yes, I understand that PDP's fanbase will support him. But the video can be voted on by practically everyone. And it's almost akin to being an open Press Statement. Most people in this case support him - as seen by the Like/Dislike ratio, and by FW being review-bombed.

    Edit: regarding IP law... PDP even says it himself. It's a grey area.
    Edited by: "prankster101" 15th Sep 2017
    a) People are stupid.

    b) Popularity and supporting a cause doesn't take priority over law.

    c) PDP isn't a lawyer. He relies on using other people's IP to make (a lot of) money. Would you expect him to say anything else??
    johnthehuman4 h, 11 m ago

    I can't quote and respond to all of that, but... if you think PDP is …I can't quote and respond to all of that, but... if you think PDP is genuinely a nice guy in that vid, you need to watch it again. Firstly he condescendingly doesn't pronounce Sean's surname when reading out his tweet. Secondly he goes on to subtley slag off Firewatch as a walking aim. Yes he says he enjoyed the game, but he's made a living out of being quite good at being subtley nasty. The statement on the website isn't express consent, but even if it was, the IP owner can still choose to revoke the right to broadcast their work at any point. For whatever reason. Let's Play-ers and Streamers are easy advertising for new games yes, but they're not required. This whole shenanigans does prove however why game devs have allowed it; personalities on the internet have a cult-like following.I like Sean's point; he acknowledges that maybe it's time for that to change, and devs shouldn't lazily rely on YouTubers to advertise their games, when it gives revenue to people like PDP I happen to have agreed with this, since way before this incident.


    I do think he is a decent guy.

    He is Swedish and struggles with some pronunciation. It is his lack of guile and showing his fallibility which has attracted so many followers. He has a right to criticize the linear aspect to the game. It is an on-rails adventure, and he says he likes it.

    PDP also states that he would abide by any instructions to take down videos by IP owners and has done in the past, but that the DMCA thing is legally questionable and was done for theatrics and to hurt him. On that he is 100% correct.

    This was never a case of whether an IP owner has a right to protect copyright, so please restating it as a defense. The point is that Sean specifically decided to start a crusade to bully PDP, and he is now rightly having his ass handing back to him.

    Now, we can talk about how YT pays content providers and I will have some sympathy for your position. For instance, when commentating on game whilst playing it and being paid through ad revenue, perhaps there should be a function to split the revenue between the lets play'er and the owners of the IP. That is a reasonable stance. To try and extinguish streamers, and therefore eradicating Twitch/Mixer/YouTube Gaming is never going to happen.

    What is happening is that people don't like YouTube stars earning a lot of money, in the same way that people despise footballers, the idle rich, bankers, drug companies. etc. It is the politics of jealousy and is certainly backed up by an increase in collectivist philosophy (both on the right and left, but mostly the left) where individual liberty is being eroded for the collective good, and I don't dig it.
    johnthehuman35 m ago

    a) People are stupid. b) Popularity and supporting a cause doesn't take …a) People are stupid. b) Popularity and supporting a cause doesn't take priority over law. c) PDP isn't a lawyer. He relies on using other people's IP to make (a lot of) money. Would you expect him to say anything else??


    A) I can see that.
    B) Some might say that the populism emanates from trying to create a witch hunt to damage somebody who made a mistake.
    C) We can have a more philosophical discussion about the nature and evolution of human knowledge if you like, but it probably will not be fruitful. So I will just restate my (correct) position. Firewatch explicitly in writing states that streaming and monetization is allowable. The reason they do this? It is free advertising, in the same vein as giving physical product away for free so people review it online. Why you cannot understand this is baffling to me.

    If Sean wants to take his ball in that's up to him. PDP just won't stream his games. It does not require a mob to try and destroy his channel because he jokes about the po-faced Mary Whitehouse left who can't laugh at themselves and believe everyone is a victim of male white patriarchy and needs a cotton wool blanket to got through life.
    "Rightly having his ass handed back". wow ok. He owns the IP, if doesn't want someone using his IP, he doesn't have to explain it to you or me or PDP or anyone.

    You mention Individual liberty, PDP is quite free to act how he wants and call people whatever he wants. What he, and you, can't do, is live in a fantasy bubble where your actions don't have consequences.

    The only reason this case has gained any traction is because people are assigning this leftist collectivist slant to it, which is nonsense. Boiled down to it's simplest form, a brand doesn't want to be associated with a character. IP owners have the 'power' in this case, it's very simple.

    I've got no issue with people earning money. I love Twitch and sub to a few streamers. I don't like how popular opinion can apparently sway what it quite a straightforward case.
    cheapo8 m ago

    A) I can see that.B) Some might say that the populism emanates from trying …A) I can see that.B) Some might say that the populism emanates from trying to create a witch hunt to damage somebody who made a mistake.C) We can have a more philosophical discussion about the nature and evolution of human knowledge if you like, but it probably will not be fruitful. So I will just restate my (correct) position. Firewatch explicitly in writing states that streaming and monetization is allowable. The reason they do this? It is free advertising, in the same vein as giving physical product away for free so people review it online. Why you cannot understand this is baffling to me.If Sean wants to take his ball in that's up to him. PDP just won't stream his games. It does not require a mob to try and destroy his channel because he jokes about the po-faced Mary Whitehouse left who can't laugh at themselves and believe everyone is a victim of male white patriarchy and needs a cotton wool blanket to got through life.


    I'm just waiting for you to use the word "cuck" then you can be crowned the rightful king and ruler of 4chan
    I find this whole thing fascinating. Man with with very large following blurts out racial slurs while playing a video game. Game dev doesn't want to be associated with said man so get a video of their game he made taken down. Man's fanbase feel they need to defend man from mean old developer.

    Someone says a thing, group a are offended by a thing, group b seem just as offended by group a being offended by a thing. Group b will use phrases like thought police, sjw and accuse group a of trying to censor and shut down free speech at the same time as trying to silence group a and tell them what they believe is wrong.

    I am not saying I agree with what Campo Santo did but I will say just because they say on their website they allow lets plays that doesn't mean they can't object. If someone did a lets play of Firewatch in a Nazi uniform while denying the holocaust do you think they would be wrong to try and get that taken down? Obviously I am not suggesting PDP did anything like that but it is still their IP at the end of the day, if they whant to change their mind on that they can.

    cheapo15 h, 13 m ago

    Was Graham Chapman a racist fascist when he remarked 'tell them we're …Was Graham Chapman a racist fascist when he remarked 'tell them we're Jewish" when the Auschwitz guards who were denying access to see the camp? Was Mel Brooks a Racist when he wrote that "The Sheriff is a Nee?" Was Chris Morris racist when he said "what about people who are less Middle class than me like builders or blacks for example?" when explaining that he was intelligent enough to take heroin in Brass Eye? "



    Holy false equivalencies batman...You can't really compare works of satire and social commentary to shouting out racial slurs while playing a game online imo. Of course Graham Chapman didn't say those comments in a sketch or performance so it could be said that his comment was slightly anti German.

    prankster1012 h, 24 m ago

    Well, PDP has accrued over 1.5 million views in less than 24hrs. Probably …Well, PDP has accrued over 1.5 million views in less than 24hrs. Probably the same amount of sales that FW has had over its lifetime. I'd say that PDP is more relevant



    I guess that really depends on you definition of relevant. I don't personally see the person with the biggest following as the most relevant. For example I would consider the President of the USA more relevent than Katy Perry.....even if he is an idiot.
    SVRich5 m ago

    Someone says a thing, group a are offended by a thing, group b seem just …Someone says a thing, group a are offended by a thing, group b seem just as offended by group a being offended by a thing. Group b will use phrases like thought police, sjw and accuse group a of trying to censor and shut down free speech at the same time as trying to silence group a and tell them what they believe is wrong.


    You can literally apply this ^ to any argument on the internet.

    Group B are generally, not always, but mostly, louder and wrong, and fail to see the irony.

    Group A gets on with their lives as normal human beings. Group B continue to become exponentially more angry.
    johnthehuman2 h, 12 m ago

    I'm just waiting for you to use the word "cuck" then you can be crowned …I'm just waiting for you to use the word "cuck" then you can be crowned the rightful king and ruler of 4chan


    /pol/ /b/ros for life yo. I don't really go on it if I am honest, but am aware of its existence.

    You can pretend all you want that this is a reasonable innocent game dev who meekly asked politely for a video to be removed to protect his IP. I am not buying it. Read the tweets. He did it out of animus, and again for the third or fourth time, this discussion and the reason it has blown up is because of the reaction from Sean and his intent. If he has just asked PDP to take all Camp Santos' videos down it wouldn't have happened this way. He wanted to virtue signal (I got dat word from 4chan y'know) to the world how gallant he is, and people aren't buying it. PDP says that his video responses are in no way an attempt to attack Sean and he will respect his wishes going forward, after Sean calls him garbage.

    Most of the buzz words and phrases that you attribute to me are in common parlance today, but have their roots in academia and philosophy, and have worried thinkers for millennia. What you are doing is trying to deride my character rather than address the fact that there is a blatant hypocrisy in the Firewatch position, which is tainted by a political bent. Cultural Marxism is alive and well in mainstream western thought, and it is a concern.

    Anyway. I don't know whether the old quote tags still works, but I'll try.

    [quote=SVRich]I find this whole thing fascinating. Man with with very large following blurts out racial slurs while playing a video game. Game dev doesn't want to be associated with said man so get a video of their game he made taken down. Man's fanbase feel they need to defend man from mean old developer. [/quote]

    Player two has joined the game!

    It isn't just his fan base. If you scour opinion online people can see the ideological tint to Sean's position, and it didn't end with his IP. His tweets speak of creating an army of developers to DMCA PDP into non-existence. That's what people are upset about.

    [quote=SVRich]Someone says a thing, group a are offended by a thing, group b seem just as offended by group a being offended by a thing. Group b will use phrases like thought police, sjw and accuse group a of trying to censor and shut down free speech at the same time as trying to silence group a and tell them what they believe is wrong. [/quote]

    I believe some of that, and it is really all theatre. However you conflate 'tell them that they are wrong' with trying to silence group A. Speaking from a centrist classical liberal position I try and speak out against censorship where ever I see it. Mostly, this censorship comes from the left at the present time (possibly group A in your case). To think otherwise isn't honest. Although, my instinct to 'hand ass" back to people is symptomatic of the human tendency toward confirmation bias, and I am humble enough to say it isn't the highest of sentiments. My contention is that group A are much more interested in the censorship game than group B.

    [quote=SVRich]I am not saying I agree with what Campo Santo did but I will say just because they say on their website they allow lets plays that doesn't mean they can't object. If someone did a lets play of Firewatch in a Nazi uniform while denying the holocaust do you think they would be wrong to try and get that taken down? Obviously I am not suggesting PDP did anything like that but it is still their IP at the end of the day, if they whant to change their mind on that they can. [/quote]

    Fair enough. Changing their mind? Check. Asking someone to remove content? Fine. Taking to twitter to try and destroy someones reputation? Nah. Not only is the DMCA legally spurious, but the whole affair was kickstarted from a video that had nothing to do with Camp Santos' content. Please don't tell me you believe their motives were pure in this, because this is the crux of the issue, which is and again I will restate. It is not that Sean has the power to protect his IP, it is the fact that Sean tried to rally a mob to ostracize someone. Not cool.

    Again, I have some sympathies regarding your circle of logic about both teams become like each other in this fight. But this is not confined to the internet, this is human nature. Tell me that similar modes of behaviours don't happen in party politics, or football rivalries, inertnational conflict etc? To denounce them as just being something that only exists on the internet is to misunderstand the innate human qualities of these charades.

    [quote=SVRich]Holy false equivalencies batman...You can't really compare works of satire and social commentary to shouting out racial slurs while playing a game online imo. Of course Graham Chapman didn't say those comments in a sketch or performance so it could be said that his comment was slightly anti German. [/quote]

    I didn't mean to elevate PDP to position of a sage like satirist. The point was to illustrate that bad taste is ok. What PDP did was in bad taste, not done with foresight, and was apologised for. Chapman's joke was merely Gallows humour at its best. The reason why people hate PDP is because his shtick is to poke fun at the sacred cows as he seems them. Respecting Wahmen, and having aggressive fake arguments with his dog, are all juvenile pursuits but those that endear him to people. He is very self reflexive and can take the mick out of himself, and can be quite funny.

    [quote=johnthehuman]You can literally apply this ^ to any argument on the internet.

    Group B are generally, not always, but mostly, louder and wrong, and fail to see the irony.

    Group A gets on with their lives as normal human beings. Group B continue to become exponentially more angry. [/quote]

    This really is disingenuous. Yes yes, ok, group A are saintly people with no agenda, and the nasty group B get their knickers in a twist. Remember, group A took to twitter calling people garbage and trying to mob up to attack someone first.
    You have said Campo Santo are being "hypocritical". Where have they been hypocritical?
    Have they been casually racist and generally unintelligent somewhere that I've missed?

    Why does it bother you so much if Campo Santo really are virtue signalling? Honest question, why are you personally so triggered by it? It doesn't affect you in any way. They're not asking for PDP to be removed from Youtube, they're asking that he doesn't use their IP. No-one is being censored (I am also against censorship), but as I mentioned, you're mistaking consequences for censorship. They're quite different.
    johnthehuman1 h, 46 m ago

    You have said Campo Santo are being "hypocritical". Where have they been …You have said Campo Santo are being "hypocritical". Where have they been hypocritical? Have they been casually racist and generally unintelligent somewhere that I've missed? Why does it bother you so much if Campo Santo really are virtue signalling? Honest question, why are you personally so triggered by it? It doesn't affect you in any way. They're not asking for PDP to be removed from Youtube, they're asking that he doesn't use their IP. No-one is being censored (I am also against censorship), but as I mentioned, you're mistaking consequences for censorship. They're quite different.



    Their position is hypocritical. They expressly give consent to stream and monetize then instead of in an orderly manner ask politely through private communications, he (Sean) falsely uses DMCA notices and tries to get everyone to bully PDP. Why does it trigger me (nice 4chan word bro)? I don't like bullies. They didn't ask him to not use their IP in a proper manner, he tried to create a movement that would through DMCA takedowns see him channel banned. You are misrepresenting the issue. That was a push for censorship.

    I am very much in favour of the idea that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. Colin Kapernick is a case in point. He has the right to not stand for the national anthem, but he does not have the right to employment by a top American Football team.

    PDP has the right to speak, but does not have the right to use someones IP nor have a YT channel. This isn't the point, The problem people have is that Sean ran to twitter to try and corral a movement to ostracize PDP. It was bullying in nature and its has largely backfired. Give me Volatire over Vanaman any day.


    "He's worse than a closeted racist: he's a propagator of despicable garbage that does real damage to the culture around this industry." - Worse than a closeted racist eh? Pathetic.

    "I'd urge other developers & will be reaching out to folks much larger than us to cut him off from the content that has made him a milionaire" - This is a direct call to all game devs to stop him making content that is his career, thus censorship.

    "Furthermore, we're complicit: I'm sure we've made money off of the 5.7M views that video has and that's something for us to think about." - Damn right you did mate. Streamers are a useful tool for you to profit, and as I said, he feels like a hypocrite.

    As far as your statement John, " It doesn't affect you in any way." Yes it does, and even if it didn't, I may not agree with what he said, but I will fight to the death for his right to say it.
    But you'll fight against Campo's right to not be associated with a "propagator of despicable garbage"? Interesting.

    The crux of the matter is, you've chosen a side. The one you've chosen to defend says a lot about your character.

    How does it affect you or me? You're acting like it's an attack on free speech (quoting Voltaire, how original). You've quoted something which I agree with, but isn't relevant here. PDP is quite free to use whatever language he sees appropriate, I'm not saying he isn't. I'm just unsure on why you think Vanaman's actions infringe on your right to listen to uneducated racist garbage?
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text