Love Sounds

Agreed. It's been quite a wild 2 pages, but the question has been answered as thoroughly as possible.

 

If that's the case, don't at least the Mods have a vote in the matter of what can be important for what's allowed and not?

What I mean is, can't mods have more say so than the users and help get something like that in progress?

It's like they say, it's who you know not what you know.

 

As the thread starter, I would prefer one of the following:

1. The thread gets back on track and continues with calm and reasonable discussion about sexuality in games. In particular the promotion of content focused on violence and bone crushing in the Unity store versus content focused on love and companionship.

There is sex in games. It's a thing. In large mainstream games, even. Why can't we sell assets in the Unity Assets Store to cater to developers who may wish to have similar things in their games?

Why does everyone immediately think of hardcore porn when the subject of sex in a game comes up?

If a game developer wants a love scene in their game, why should they have to struggle to find the animations and sounds they need when someone who wants to show a persons head get brutally crushed by a sledgehammer doesn't?

2. If we can't get in on track, I'd prefer the thread be closed, since my original question was already answered and the discussion is beginning to veer off in unrelated directions.

 

Have I missed something? Who says we can't?

As for why it's a struggle to find such content, it's a supply vs. demand thing.

 

Unity replied and said we can't. They said they won't sell sexual-related assets in the store. Sounds, animations, etc. If they are based on sex, they won't sell them. I edited my post above to reflect that I'm strictly talking about selling assets via the Asset store. Of course we can sell assets anywhere we like, but this thread is about the Asset Store.

I LOVE the Asset Store. It's an amazingly useful thing. Unity is a business and can do whatever they like, of course, absolutely. I'm not here to get them to change their minds or force them to do something that would be a bad business decision, I'm just here wondering why there are hard and fast rules where assets based on love are forbidden but assets based on hate are welcomed with open arms.

I know the answer. I know the issue. I live in this society like everyone else. I understand how things work.I don't expect to resolve it here in the Unity forum. I just thought it was an interesting idea to think about.

 

Well good thing it's not hard to mock such sounds huh? LOL.

 

I have such an extensive library of such assets too!

Now I have to go find another asset store!

Your loss Unity!

 

It might not be through the asset store, but you could still sell those assets to users in need of them. They're items too hot for the asset store and are going to be unique to a 3rd party market. That'll drive up the price

 

OP should have the ability to close the thread..... just putting that out there *cough cough*

 

I missed this:

Did you ask them to clearly define "inappropriate"? Because I agree with others here, there's no logical reason for that to apply to what you asked and not to explicitly violent assets.

One caveat is that plenty of "violent" assets aren't actually explicit when outside of the context of their game. For instance, plenty of dismemberment / collision / damage / etc. effects are actually people throwing / squashing / splatting fruit. There's... no reason to "protect" anyone from that until it's been combined with images of a zombie or whatever actually undergoing the violence which the sounds are to support. (But the Asset Store does, to some degree, provide that imagery to go along with the sounds.)

On the other hand, aside from the most generic stuff I think that "intimacy" assets are pretty explicitly what they are.

To be honest, I need neither intimacy nor heavy violence assets, so I'm not bothered either way. It's interesting to hear why people think how they do about these things, though. (And to be fair, there are perfectly pragmatic reasons for a business to make decisions about this stuff that aren't immediately logical. It's not just about what Unity thinks, it's about what Unity's existing and potential customers think. And personally, if I went to someone's website and saw stuff that reminded me of the seedier side of the Internet... well, I'd be less inclined to give them money.)

 

Why should conversations be forcibly stopped just because the topic drifts? Mods should split them instead. Conversations should be promoted, not pruned based on arbitrary stuff like the thread title.

 

You go penguin!

I've seen just about one too many little lock icons lately.

Yes, Unity's forums.
Yes, mods need to do "crowd control".

But... either facilitate discussion or keep your hands off.

IMHO, of course.

Edit
Apologies.
Didn't mean to be harsh on the mods. You do a pretty good job.

 

I don't think I've seen any unreasonable locks. I've seen stuff I thought should be split, but that's a different matter. I just don't think OPs should be able to lock threads just 'cause they started it.

A conversation is a shared thing. It doesn't somehow belong to the person who first opened their mouth. If I were at a party, started a conversation, and the topic drifted, people wouldn't shut up just because I said so. It makes no sense. In fact, putting it lightly, people would think I was more than a little odd for even thinking that way. Why should they not be able to talk about something just because it came up as a tangent to a conversation I started? Or because the conversation wasn't going my way?

 

/good_points

Ok.

 

It's unfortunate that sexuality has become synonymous with seedy, but it's been that way for a very long time. Sex is pushed to the back, out of site, embarrassing and "inappropriate", and that in turn makes room for the "seedy" side of humanity (and the Internet) to embrace it as its own. Sad, really.

What's bizarre is that sex reminds us of the seedy side of the Internet, whereas violence should remind us of the S***ty side of humanity, and that just doesn't seem to be so. When an entire culture embraces something as its own, and as "appropriate", the people raised within that culture tend to follow suit, no questions asked.

 

How is it bizarre? If you want to buy an action movie it's in the same shops that sell toys and clothes. If you want to buy some pornography... well, you need to go somewhere else. It's a deliberate disconnect that society made for some reason that allowed the seediness to take hold.

The issue with the seediness isn't that it reminds us of pornography, it's that the places that happen to sell pornography are also dodgy for other reasons, and it's that association that's undesireable.

 

I think people would do well to remember the topic title is 'love sounds' not 'sex sounds'. The latter sounds more seedy like rapidly flapping parts and grunty bits.

Yeah I agree but I think there's a lot wrong with culture today. It's humanity in it's teen years, frankly.

 

Yes!

We'll grow up though.

 

That's exactly it, and why I said it's bizarre. You can buy an action movie with tons of violence in a toy store. Sexuality, however, has been driven underground, which is why the underground (seedy side) openly embraces it. You don't see a lot of violent action movies in underground, back alley shops, because violent action movies are perfectly fine in our society. If violent movies, games, etc. were looked down upon and not allowed for sale in mainstream places, guess where you would find them.

Sex isn't fine in society, violence is. That's what I find bizarre. The thing that got us here in the first place and brings us together is somehow "bad" and the thing that kills us and drives us apart is "good". I find that strange. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

 

Oh, I agree that it's strange and silly. The seedy association isn't the same as thinking that sex is bad, though. And while there is causality from people thinking sex is bad leading to the seediness, it's not direct.

1. Some people decide sex is bad for whatever reason. Shockingly, this spreads (probably church influence?).
2. Because of 1, whether or not people think sex is "bad" they are embarrassed about it and it gets pushed "underground".
3. Because it's underground and out of plain sight, it becomes a natural breeding ground for other people and practices that also like to remain out of plain sight.

Note that the causality isn't from 1 to 3, it's from 2 to 3. 1 is where the "bad" comes from, 3 is where the "seedy" comes from, and it's not so much because of the content as it's because of who's doing the selling and the associations that come along with those people. If 2 hadn't happened that association might never be there.

 

Unity will approve the blood, guts and glory, morbid kind of things, because it fits in various game genres, sex related assets likely wont get approved, because its just plain wrong. No one would make a game related to sex afaik. Just my thoughs

And like you said, violence is sort of ok in our society and sex kind of isnt (?). Same reason people believe in the bible, people follow the idea and they spread this idea, make it ok. For example : People use directx more than openGl, because more people like it, even though openGl is better. Society adapts to the idea that is accepted by the majority (like tatoos are bad)

 

What a bizarre debut from Sony. About as equally baffling as their decision to use a 99% open source and free development stack for their Playstation 4, and still having the audacity to restrict who can access the console and what they can access. In light of this asset, it would be really interesting to see whether they'd accept or reject a game like Hatred on the PS4.

 

Wrong according to who? And how is sex more wrong than killing? As an actual gameplay mechanic, there certainly are people who have made games about sex. I won't post links, of course. But it doesn't have to be a gameplay mechanic. Plenty of PG movies and broadcast television shows use sex in various forms to drive a narrative. It could be used to the same effect in video games.

 

it seems we need a 18+ unity asset store now lol.

Porno is a large market actually. There is always a great demand. We don't touch it because of our ethics. Besides, it's hard to put this things into profile, which means if you get into this industry it's hard to get out.

 

Changed your quote to reflect why I'm glad I've only worked on one violent game in my life. Doesn't mean I won't work on more in the future but that one was enough for a while.

 

Hmmm

Drugs is a large market actually. There is always a great demand. We don't touch it because of our ethics................. (says no drug addict/pot head ever).

Sounds like a crock of s**t right? lol.

 

Not because it is off topic, because there is nothing to talk about! It's 3 pages of nothing! After the first few posts this thread should have stopped but for some reason it will go on to 4 pages I bet.

 

And yet here you are, adding to it. I'll admit that there's plenty of mush in here, but I do also think there are a few bits of reasonable conversation as well. If you don't think so why do you keep coming in and participating?

 

Do you keep track of all threads in the forum to make sure they are closed once they reach a conclusion you're happy with? That must be exhausting.

 

You know, this is a discussion that needs to be had at all levels of entertainment. I don't get the rush to close the thread. I am with Superpig...Does this make people uncomfortable? And if so, why? Is it because the discussion of sex and how it is portrayed in entertainment makes one uncomfortable? Or is it because violence has become such a huge marketable factor in video games and movies that most people involved in these industries simply cannot see entertainment without it?

There was a time when we drew a line between acceptable violence in entertainment (mostly movies and TV) and rarely crossed that line without controversy. That line has moved over the years and now it is difficult to go see a movie or a cable TV show without some sort of gratuitous violence. I mean violence for the sake of violence, the ultra bloody gory stuff where the guy is shot and the head explodes all over the screen, or body parts swim on your TV screen. Sometimes violence is necessary to the theme of the movie, such as portraying a story based a true life about war or a horrific murder. But for the most part, violence is just used as a marketing tool. Our children have become not only immune to it, but they expect it their movies. For some folks, it is what makes them watch the movie. For others, they watch the movie only because almost all movies are violent these days.

Sex in entertainment is the same. There was a time when Lucy and Desi had twin beds and when the picture faded to black after a long kiss. Now any show from HBO or Showtime has some pretty implicit sex. Again, we have moved the bar and while most TV shows still stop at a tangle of arms and legs, my guess is that bar will be crossed soon.

Oddly enough, video games seem to be falling behind. Maybe because certain groups see video game more dangerous to kids. My guess is that those who make these decisions just don't trust parents to police their own children and in our country, sex is more dangerous than violence precisely because the bar for violence has been lowered, and in a spectacular way, while the bar for sex portrayed on TV and in movies has gradually and silently changed. No one is paying attention.

Personally, I use the rating systems with my kids. Teens play teen games and M games are reviewed by me before being allowed. I don't like games where people shoot people with bloody gory messes. They are not allowed in my house. When my kids move out, they can play them all they want. My teens accept this and even my young adult son who lives at home respects my decision. We haven't had to make the same decisions about sex but if it were not portrayed as violent sex, I would probably be a little more lenient in that direction. Consensual sex is not "bad" or something to cause shame. It's purpose is not to put people's lives in danger or to kill them. It is a normal part of life, not an exception.

 

Would you care to define "love" for us in this context that is so vastly different from sex?

 

(Just deleted a post) - Personal attacks will be deleted, and I ask people to adhere to forum rules.

 

Okay, had a long reply but Hippo said it all. Thanks, Hippo!

BTW, it is easy to "unwatch" a thread. Just saying.

 

But yet, Hollywood will be quick to see people get ripped to pieces by Cujo ("The movie").
Hmm don't you see the Irony here?

A dog that rips people to pieces vs making a baby. Hmmm. lol.

 

Aw, I missed all the excitement. Thanks for staying vigilant, hippocoder.

 

Sex in videogames also doesn't have to just be used as part of a narrative (Mass Effect games etc) or as a primary game mechanic (adult porn games etc). The Sims series is a fairly all-ages type of game and it has "woohoo" for both making babies and just as recreation for the Sims. It has been a long time since I played one of those but I think they do have some degree of "love-sounds" during the pixalated animation. I realize that's a fairly niche (albeit popular) type of game, but I figured it was worth bringing up.

 

This is safe to watch at work.

But I thought it was pertinent and funny.

 

That video is blocked for my country (even though I live on Mars), so... here's another link: https://screen.yahoo.com/video-game-063209122.html

 

This is precisely why I've been using the term "intimacy" in most cases. Sex is just one activity in a broad spectrum of things people in love (or not) might do.

 

They giggle. Not really love-sounds, at least not in the context of the thread.

 

I'll just have to trust yours and everyone else's opinion on this. My species doesn't mate so I can't form opinions on this properly.

I wonder if there are people who shout in terror as loudly as possible during intimate moments.

 

Was just watching Futurama.

 

Good job it's not an exclamation like "MY NUTS!"

Edit:

Had to delete some issues from users. No personal attacks are allowed. Continuation will result in bans.

 

The thread is really about sex sounds, which of course can indeed involve giggling, but I renamed it so people wouldn't get in trouble if someone walked by and thought they liked sex.

So anyway, if a sex (love) sound pack would be released, I wonder what sounds would be in it, and if it would pass muster. According to the Unity Store team, if it has to do with sex it won't be approved, so I suppose the sounds couldn't be anything like kissing, laughing, giggling, breathing (heavily), or anything like that. Grunting might do because people who are having their knees smashed in with an axe will quite often grunt, and loudly at that. Someone having their eyes ripped out might moan even. So actually, I guess a grunting and moaning pack might get approved.

 

LOL I can tell your hell-bent on releasing a sfx pack LOL. Love the enthusiasm

 

I know, Ony, which is why I said "in the context of this thread."

The giggle in the sims in no way resembles a sexy giggle. It is a T rated game and while they do warn of the suggestions of sexual situations on their package, it is more the "fade to black" sort of sexual suggestions. Of course, players have made mods..but that is a different story.

 

I guess it boils down to us living in a heavily patriarchic society where destroying things and people privately or in public is generally considered less problematic than making love. There's cultural differences (e.g. in the US this appears to be much more extreme than in Europe) but in general, think about how many people killed (explicitly or implicitly) someone who watches TV regularly will see within 10 years compared to how many babies made (or born, explicitly or implicitly) they will see. To us, this may appear "normal" because we were born into this society and usually don't know much else - but when you remove our cultural bias it will most likely appear rather pathological.

Maybe we should create more games that inspire returning to a more matriarchic reality assuming this means returning to a natural and healthy balance of the archetypal qualities of feminine (nurturing, birth-giving, power) and masculine (providing structure and knowledge/wisdom) which are usually mixed in each individual.

In a world like that, a package like the one Sony offers would be considered completely unacceptable - and for good reasons - while a "love sounds" package would probably offend almost no one (there's always diversity, so some people probably would still be offended ;-) ).

In a world like that, it would be very likely that our species would survive the test of time.

The way we currently run things, we'll need lots of luck ;-) ... I guess that's one reason why Zombie Apocalypse games are so popular these days ;-)

It's up to us what kind of world we want to create ... if we choose wisely, we might get to keep it ;-)

 

Oh yes, I understood that, Teila. I just thought your post was a good one to respond to for getting things back on track in the thread.