240°

Overwatch New LGBT Character Hype

There's a lot of interesting things that's happening in Overwatch lately and the inclusion of a new LGBT character will truly keep all different demographics happy.

Read Full Story >>
goodnewsgaming.com
Snookies122757d ago (Edited 2757d ago )

I'm sorry, but one of the last things that comes to my mind when playing a game is my sexual preference. Especially in a shooter... Like, seriously what's the point? Just play the game and have fun, don't see how sexual preference plays any part in that.

deathby72757d ago

You didn't watch the video lol

Rodney252755d ago

Some people care, Overwatch is a huge community and to some (including me) the characters seem like one big family, in that regard; is it the worst thing ever to want to know more about them? If you don't care, thats fine, it doesn't effect you.

FunAndGun2755d ago

Don't see why it matters to you then.

2755d ago
DragonKnight2755d ago

People who care have deep personal problems that should be addressed via the nearest therapist. All that should matter in a game is anything that benefits the game. The only time sexual orientation should ever matter is if it is being used as a story element or part of character development. Since Overwatch has neither, this is base pandering at its height and I feel sorry for people defending it and asking "why do you care if it doesn't affect you?"

But it does affect all of us because it's showing game developers that they merely have to make the most shallow, cursory efforts to please people with self-esteem issues and identity crises without even trying to make something halfway decent.

2754d ago
+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2754d ago
MagicBeanz2756d ago (Edited 2756d ago )

There's absolutely no reason to have this in games, just more pandering to the militant LGBTZPQXRS356NC65 community. Zero plans to buy Overwatch for sure now.

FunAndGun2755d ago (Edited 2755d ago )

There is absolutely no reason to have half naked women in seductive posses in all of gaming either, but you guys support that like feral animals. Just more pandering to horny young men.

Kyosuke_Sanada2755d ago (Edited 2755d ago )

You knows there are women who are also attracted to other scantly clad females so it still panders to both genders...........you sexist. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

DragonKnight2755d ago

Here's the thing though, none of us are asking for scantily clad women in seductive poses to actually be in games. We won't be upset if they are in the game of course, but we didn't ask for it and we aren't starting movements demanding them. What we don't like is the removal of something simply because someone else is offended by it. You do not have the right to not be offended, you do have the right to not purchase a product, and censorship benefits no one in the end.

2754d ago
MagicBeanz2751d ago

One has nothing to do with the other but kudos for trying to make excuses, even if it was a poor one.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2751d ago
LastCenturyRob2756d ago

So beyond sick of forced PC in ever aspect of entertainment and media these days!

cyphertech2756d ago

The simple presence of an LGBT character is PC? What does PC mean to you exactly?

2754d ago
FunAndGun2755d ago (Edited 2755d ago )

Forced PC? Maybe the development team wanted to include gay characters. Maybe some of the development team are gay and wanted to be represented in their own game. Maybe you could protect this creative freedom just like everyone protects the freedom to put half naked women in games.

Every article on N4G that talks about curbing female sexuality in games you guys stand up and say that it is the creative expression of the artist to make the females how they want. Now they want to put a gay character in the game and you cry foul.

Either you support devs making games how they want or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose what is creative freedom and what isn't according to what you feel comfortable with.

DragonKnight2755d ago

@cyphertech: It's not. But it is forced pandering.

@FunAndGun: "Maybe the development team wanted to include gay characters. Maybe some of the development team are gay and wanted to be represented in their own game."

A) Then it would have made it into the game at launch.
B) In a first person Hero shooter with no real story?

"Maybe you could protect this creative freedom just like everyone protects the freedom to put half naked women in games."

And if the fact that any character were gay actually had relevance and some kind of benefit to the game, then everyone would protect that freedom, but I think it's very telling that you always jump to "half naked women" as an argument as if you think anyone actually asks for that or cares beyond fighting against censorship to cater to feels. Your sexual orientation doesn't deserve any more or less representation than anyone else's and your heterosexual shaming tactics are childish.

"Every article on N4G that talks about curbing female sexuality in games you guys stand up and say that it is the creative expression of the artist to make the females how they want. Now they want to put a gay character in the game and you cry foul."

Typical regressive argument, taking only the most surface and insubstantial position possible and pouncing on the attack. Censorship is the issue. Well actually pandering is the issue and censorship is a form of pandering. Curbing sexuality or adding sexual orientation is not an issue for us, it's WHY it happens that is the issue. If a game is originally going to release with a scantily clad lesbian fighting for her right to work as a sex worker, and then pandering forces that to be changed to a heterosexual nun fighting for the virtues of abstinence, then you'll see everyone here fighting against it. Context matters.

"Either you support devs making games how they want or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose what is creative freedom and what isn't according to what you feel comfortable with."

Actually we do when it's clearly obvious that it's not "creative freedom." Overwatch has no real story, no real character interaction, and no real character development. Making a character gay is very clearly pandering because there is literally no other reason to do it other than to pander. It's literally pointless. There is no benefit to the game, no benefit to the non-existent story, and no benefit to the non-existent character development.

Unless you're going to dive into the backstory, no one will ever know (unless heavy stereotypes are used) that ____ character is gay because it will never have an opportunity to come up. You call a complete lack of in-game representation a good example of representation?

Manubiggs2756d ago

I think it is great to have representations of all kinds of people in games. That said , at the end of the day, the most important thing is if the character is fun to play.

Show all comments (51)
70°

Every PlayStation Studios game available now on Windows PC

Windows Central writes: "Many PlayStation Studios games that are ported to PC get dedicated PS5 DualSense support, which allows users to experience haptic feedback and adaptive trigger support without actually having to own a PS5.

According to Hermen Hulst, head of PlayStation Studios, it's still the company's intent to launch the bigger single-player games on PS5 first, before later bringing the games to PC. This might not be the case for multiplayer games however, which are considered okay to launch simultaneously on console and PC."

Read Full Story >>
windowscentral.com
ocelot077h ago

My guess is after god of war. Probably last of us 2 that's a almost 4 year old game now and by the time it's released on pc it will be more than 4 years old or close to 5.

Elda1h ago

Every old Playstation game that is now on PC.

200°

Former Activision studio Toys for Bob partners with Xbox to publish its first game as an indie

Former Activision studio Toys for Bob partners with Xbox to publish its first game as an indie. This is something of a homecoming, as Microsoft owns Activision.

Read Full Story >>
engadget.com
Obscure_Observer17h ago

Very very early in development. Still, fantastic news!

Let´s GO!!!

Lightning7715h ago

I guess.

How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )

At least it wouldn't be MS of all ppl destroying them.

MS really should let go Tango go like they did TFB here.

darthv7215h ago(Edited 15h ago)

one was under Bethesda (Tango) the other under Activision (TFB). Clearly each one handled the separations of their subordinates differently.

Obscure_Observer14h ago(Edited 14h ago)

"How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )"

Perhaps because Zenimax and ABK handles such matters differently based on their own internal policies as "independent" publishers.

Whoever, chances are it´s simply because MS didn´t wanted Tango or Austin to be acquired by competitors and develop new bangers for them, giving MS a bad rep in a possible future. Which could also be the reason why they ensured an exclusive partnership with TFB and its new game, before anyone else.

Sad and disgusting. But it is what it is.

Lightning7711h ago(Edited 11h ago)

"Whoever, chances are it´s simply because MS didn´t wanted Tango or Austin to be acquired by competitors and develop new bangers for them, giving MS a bad rep in a possible future."

MS has a bad rep now because those studios are no more. I rather them sell the studio continue to make multiplatform releases, while MS continues to focus on whatever they're doing. If they didn't want Tango around they should separated from them or sell them to, like they did TFB.

It's inexcusable, they have options on how to handle studios they don't want anymore with killing jobs. Not just MS but the rest of the industry also.

Sad and disgusting sure how many will get shut down next year or this year even?

I don't trust MS decisions and motivations at this point. You have to admit they make one dumb move after another.

Obscure_Observer3h ago(Edited 3h ago)

"MS has a bad rep now because those studios are no more. I rather them sell the studio continue to make multiplatform releases, while MS continues to focus on whatever they're doing. If they didn't want Tango around they should separated from them or sell them to, like they did TFB."

Imo, MS separated from TFB because they didn´t had a game associated with Xbox yet, unlike Tango.

"I don't trust MS decisions and motivations at this point. You have to admit they make one dumb move after another."

Fair enough. It was indeed an epic dumb move from them to close Tango.

Still, all to be forgotten, like always have. This is not the first time a big publisher shuts down a beloved and/or successful studio out of nowhere and certainly won´t be the last. Do you remember Lionhead? Do you remember Evolution Studios? Yeah... both were beloved studios and yet, those companies kill those studios in q blink of an eye and got away with it.

anast1h ago(Edited 1h ago)

The studio boss made some money from this transaction. Once the game releases, the studio will get chopped up.

-Foxtrot17h ago

Manages to buy their freedom especially after all the shit Microsoft has been doing with its studios lately

...

Goes right back to them as partners.

Okaaaaaay...

darthv7215h ago

Id venture a guess that TFB working directly with MS was a better outcome than working through Activision to get to MS.

VersusDMC13h ago

From the article...

"Toys for Bob spun out as an indie back in February after Microsoft instituted sweeping layoffs that impacted 86 employees, which was more than half of the staff"

I doubt those 86 employees enjoyed the Microsoft experience over Activisions.

Inverno13h ago

MS shuts down studios because of lack of resources and then helps these guys by giving em resources. Also MS is what forced them to buy their freedom in the first place? What kind of logic 😂

Chevalier9h ago

The best thing is that the company that is worth $3 trillion and owns the company instead of Xbox lacks resources. How the hell does a company worth $3 trillion making a measly $70 billion purchase they 'can't' support. Lol

Sciurus_vulgaris15h ago(Edited 15h ago)

Xbox’s gaming division seems to still function as 3 semi-autonomous sub-divisions, Xbox Studios, Bethesda and ABK. The three main sub-divisions can seemingly shut down or build studios and set up partnerships independently. This would explain why Bethesda can recently shutdown studios, while ABK spins off one studio, while building a new one. Plus, Toys for Bob could be spun off by ABK, only to immediately re-partner with Microsoft.

Chevalier9h ago

That's absolutely 💯 BS. Any sane 'autonomous' company would NOT put their games on Gamepass day 1 like COD will lose probably billions.

Also they're all under Xbox game studios so any autonomy is an illusion.

Elda10h ago

Either a kiddie game or something uninteresting.

Obscure_Observer3h ago

Don´t worry. You won´t be playing it anyway since their next game will possible be a next gen Xbox console game.

Elda2h ago(Edited 2h ago)

Don't worry about my comments.

Show all comments (20)
130°

What Happens to Your Steam Account When You Die?

The Outerhaven writes: While Steam has come out recently, stating that Steam accounts can't be transferred, we need to think about it since we all will eventually kick the bucket. But if Valve is denying transferring accounts, what can be done? Plenty, actually.

Read Full Story >>
theouterhaven.net
thorstein1d 18h ago

It goes to my kids because I gave them the passwords.

To Steam: Missio has a song that conveys my feelings about you stealing my purchase after I die. It's called "Middle Fingers"

shinoff218323h ago

Pretty much. My son knows my info.

Abear2123h ago

Yeah worrying about digital ownership when you’re on the other side of the grass seems a little strange, but also on brand for these millennial journalists to worry about.

qalpha8h ago

I'm sure Keith will be happy to hear he's a millennial journalist.

Goodguy011d 3h ago

I suppose if I have kids, I'd just give em my account details by retirement age. If I die young then...idk lol.

CrimsonWing691d 1h ago

Yea, I mean just give someone the password to your account. Is that difficult to do or something? Like, I’m legit asking because I don’t know.

anast23h ago(Edited 23h ago)

It's not difficult but It's against the policy. If they find out, they will lock the account permanently.

CrimsonWing6921h ago

Ah ok, I had a feeling there was something like that. It seems kind of weird that you can’t just hand your account over to a family member or friend and let them take over the account.

Show all comments (15)