I'll bet this will turn into the usual identity politics nightmare that ultimately caters to a tiny fraction of gamers while worsening the experience for the majority. If this were such a massive problem, millions of people wouldn't be spending billions of dollars and hundreds millions of man hours playing these games.
This is about politics, not gaming experience.
You know what, I would.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't want these same people regulating speech or whatever. But I do want them regulating their own userbases. I do want moderators on HN enforcing the HN guidelines, just like I want Blizzard to enforce the "Blizzard guidelines" in their games, whatever they may be.
And honestly, the fact you think this "ultimately caters to a tiny fraction of gamers while worsening the experience for the majority" tells me you're part of the problem; you're probably often toxic to other players (even if you don't notice it), get your account muted/locked out/whatever, and then think that you did nothing wrong and everyone's in the same boat as you.
You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen this. People who think their behaviour is OK, who think they're not making the experience worse for other players. Then they wonder why they got banned. They go on the game's forums, subreddit, etc and complain "[studio] is banning people randomly!". And then some fed up dev from the studio pulls up chat logs and reveals some disgusting behaviour.
> If this were such a massive problem, millions of people wouldn't be spending billions of dollars and hundreds millions of man hours playing these games.
Thousands of companies are spending millions of dollars fighting that problem because it's affecting their players' experience, which ultimately affects players' willingness to buy and play the studio's games. Once again, that you think they'd willingly cater to a "tiny fraction" of their base, is absurd and gives a glimpse of your true nature.
Sorry for having the wrong opinion, but personal attacks are uncalled for.
Ironic.
So, to illustrate my point, would you prefer that heavy handed mods step in to censor you according to their definition of toxicity, or would you rather have the freedom to continue this discussion to possibly reach some resolution?
I prefer to put faith in peoples' ability to resolve conflict without vague rules regarding inconsistent notions of toxicity, especially in the context of gaming, where I can leave and join another game more or less any time.
Heavy handed modding has flagged me and even limited my ability to post in the past. I don't necessarily agree with it (although it was deserved a few times), but mods are the arbiters of the community, not me. They have the option of listening to user feedback in aggregate.
It works the same in games. The studio is the arbiter of the community, not the players. The players give feedback to the studio. The studio has the option of listening.
And players have been giving feedback in troves that toxicity sucks, that toxic players ruin other players' gaming experience, and that they want that gone. Studios are listening. If you're getting caught on the wrong end of this, try being nicer to people.
Like billions of dollars and probably billions of man hours worth of gaming in an industry that is only growing?
Have you considered further that some degree of so called toxicity is inherent to the fun of gaming?
Why stop there? Why not set standards for content as well? You're talking about games that simulate violence, killing, war in general, but you demand that the playerbase act in accordance to your personal sensibilities?
What proof do you have that the majority of gamers aren't fine with the status quo? Why are you so convinced that arbitrary rules against toxicity don't lessen the experience for the majority?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: just because the industry is growing doesn't mean that people don't mind toxicity. It's possible the industry would be growing even faster if there was less toxicity, for example.
> Have you considered further that some degree of so called toxicity is inherent to the fun of gaming?
Maybe some people enjoy being called a faggot by randoms on Xbox, but I don't. I'd go so far as to say the majority of people prefer not to be called slurs by random strangers. Can't we do something to stop that?
> Why stop there? Why not set standards for content as well? You're talking about games that simulate violence, killing, war in general, but you demand that the playerbase act in accordance to your personal sensibilities?
Why is any attempt to prevent any form of toxicity a slippery slope that can only lead to some sort of Orwellian nightmare of censorship?
Unless you're using your own servers for the game and they're still doing this, they aren't really forcing you to do anything. They're their servers, so they go by their rules. If you don't like it, you can just, y'know, not play the game.
Moreover, when these developers have access to the minds of hundreds of millions of people, including children, there is a degree of cultural forcing involved. These developers' ideas of right and wrong are potentially influencing society, and this is something that non gamers have little control over.
At the very least, journalists have a responsibility to recognize that toxicity is not universal. One could argue that there is potential for priming young people toward obscenity laws and nanny statism, when they are conditioned to look toward authority for resolution of all problems.
Farfetched, perhaps, but I personally believe that people need to learn to deal with such problems on their own, because external solutions are not always available or enforceable. This could easily have unforseen consequences.
I really don't understand why people think it's okay to push a perfectly sanitary online gaming atmosphere. To me the whole point is that it's NOT sanitary.
You're at the median of your own experience, but what if you're near the far left of the bell curve across all players?
I probably am - I honestly enjoy the trash-talking, even when it grossly violates cultural norms. I feel like it's a part of the "gamer culture" that I enjoy.
I also get that there are (probably a lot) of people that don't want it. I just hope that there will continue to be a place for people who don't want to be subject to the censorship.
I don't want either of those to happen. When they do, it ruins the fun for me. After a while, I will stop playing. Plenty of others agree with me, which is why these companies are taking this seriously. They don't want people to stop playing.
For example, by allowing toxicity to be rampant, you're really just catering to a tiny fraction of people, the toxic people. The opposite of what you think.
If you want to play with quality, respectful players, you'll need to put in the elbow grease to create that ecosystem. Compare the average HN comment (moderated) to the average /r/programming comment (unmoderated). I don't see a lot of "identity politics" going on around the moderation here as you seem to suggest must coexist with such moderation.
As for people who intentionally cause harm, that's a very real issue which I was not addressing with my above comments.
It doesn't matter if they don't think it's abusive or not. It's still abusive, and they need to be informed of that. If, after that, they amend their behavior, then great. They've learned and grown as humans are supposed to do. But if they continue to insist on the behavior, then they're abusive, full stop.