Are they removing content that is “objectionable,” or are they removing content that isn’t marketable? Where is the line between the two?

He’s right, though. You can’t make a blanket statement about censorship in general. It’s always a discussion that exists within the context of the content being discussed.

Well, to be fair, when it comes up it’s usually creepy Japanese stuff. If you see any other games being censored, let us know, and we’ll talk about them.

Which is why this isn’t censorship. This isn’t avoiding offense or sanction. This is making their product more marketable in a different region. No different than changing the language or rearranging text to make it more legible in a different culture.

If a change is made to avoid offense it is censorship.

They’re not forced to. They do it because they know it will make the game more marketable, legible, or popular in whatever market they’re approaching.

Sorry, but altering your own work to make it more understandable, marketable, relatable, or otherwise palatable for another market is an absurd definition for censorship, and it robs it of any real meaning.

If you have that kind of reaction to true statements of fact then I'd suggest you see a doctor.

So every time Coca Cola alters their logo or redesigns their can, that’s censorship? Every time a company cuts their 30 second TV commercial down to 15 seconds that’s censorship?

Blu-ray will suffice a bit longer. They’ll just do multiple discs like they’ve done with every other disc format until the next storage format is developed. Even the biggest games released right now don’t fill up more than 40 Gb, and that’s with HD textures meant to be viewed on hardcore gaming PCs. File sizes can be…

You also seem to be under the false impression that an entity can’t censor its own creation, but self censorship is still censorship. The mistake here is in assuming that censorship us always a dirty word when its not.

I guess we will see but considering Project $10 and all other initiatives that I know about that were clearly designed to squeeze a bit more from the pre-owned market especially have failed, I doubt it.

This is a company making alterations to their product to make it more marketable and comprehensible to a foreign market. That's not censorship. That's localization. It's literally the definition of localization. No one is telling them what they can or can not create, or who they can sell it to. This is a company…

Unless all the major publishers and the likes of Gamestop come together and decide to collectively hike their retail game prices then it’s probably not going to happen.

Many of those who understood what MS were trying to do supported their idea. Unfortunately Sony’s marketing machine blew everything out of proportion and lead to the situation that we’re in now.

Look, if it hasn’t changed by now then it isn’t going to

“The people who don't know the difference between censorship and localization"

Good thing this isn't censorship: it's localization.

There are those who look to circumvent it of course with season passes etc but for the most part it’s non-negotiable and will stay that way for as long as boxed retail games exist.

I’m not anti-AAA. I’m pro-consumer choice and industry variety. You’re the one who seems to be pro-corporation and anti-independent developers. None of your "arguments" make the least bit of sense. You're literally arguing for a games industry with less choice, less variety, and less power in the hands of consumers.…