They took the pilot for a series and aired it in theaters.

Thank you for this hot take, Ghost-Of-1980s-media-stereotypes.

On the one hand, part of me feels like Steam just needs to communicate better. Give people guidelines for what is okay or not, and explain what they’re taking actions for.

$10 for 2 movies, being generous is $2.50 an hour. $60 for 30 hour campaign is $2 an hour, a better value than the drive in theater.

Because saying they’re not in the game implies that this is the first time that’s been the case, when the fact is that, not even counting version exclusives, the last game that had every pokemon available in it was Red and Blue. Not a SINGLE mainline pokemon set since then has had every pokemon available. Sword and…

Calling the mons cut is inherently misleading, bordering on deceptive.

It’s no excuse for hitting someone period.

It’s really unfortunate that “I like a thing, A SUCCESSFUL SIMILAR THING IS THEREFORE BAD” can be considered a nerdy attitude.

This was a mistake.  It was memetically bad, now it's just inoffensively mediocre which.... is sooo much worse than bad.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck no!

It’s not just me, those are all just pictures of the same guy posing a little differently, right?

“Global Charity Initiative.”

Self defeating argument. How can it be ‘auto-censorship’ if the same company put out something MORE scandalous AFTER this product. Maybe it’s not auto censorship at all but that Tokyo Mirage is supposed to be seen as a much more family friendly game than the (intended to be) subversive Persona series.

B-B-B-b-b-

They absolutely still changed it because the idea alone of a 16 year old girl doing erotic shoots would already turn off a lot of players.  The moral being that she should stop being so shy about it would get the game dismissed immediately as just another fanservice game.

Yeah, but the game was PRO sexualization.

It’s not defined by exclusive attraction. It’s bad because those are physically immature people, not because they don’t ALSO like sexually mature people.

Fine, you’re an ephebophile.  Besides, the only argument in favor of this required is that this is not censorship.  A change HAS to be imposed on the artist by an outside force to be censorship.  

Fun fact: This was not censorship.

Heads up for the other commenters: Not every job position is responsible for productivity. Meaning there ARE positions that either can reasonably only do certain things depending on the business (such as a salaried accountant. You’re paying them to get the work done, not for their time), or you don’t WANT them to be…