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?
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.