It might be able to be met, sure. I don't know if it can be met without compromise though. I'd assume if a certain region insisted on a more censored version of the game it would come packaged with the corresponding assets. Intuitively I'd expect making those assets available in other regions running a "normal" version of the game would mean they must be included with it too. Included in the game as extras.
The larger concern this is a fairly deep rabbit hole. What if one person feels violence, gore, etc. is off-limits but T&A is acceptable? What if another has a personal problem with any type of references to drugs? How far are we going to go with tailoring the experience to the individual?
Again, I assumed this is why entertainment has ratings applied to it. A movie is rated TV-MA. A game is rated 17+ by the ESRB. Obviously, the user can navigate around this type of stuff at their discretion, to an extent. Say, a parent feeling a 15 year old can be exposed to 17+ rated content and allowing them to enjoy the game. This is very different from insisting the game offer an option to omit or hide specific content.
To be clear, I don't take issue with the personal views on these matters. It's a big world and we cannot and will not agree on everything. But.... if the game is advertised and rated to feature mature content then mature content should be expected. The developer already has to jump through enough hoops to meet the applicable criteria for the rating they feel maximizes game sales. They shouldn't be pushed toward an additional layer of self-censorship to cater to every little fringe case.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean. What you're describing is exactly what is done consistently in the world today. This is what censorship laws decide in every country or region, every day of every year. This is what the the experts that sit censorship boards are for. It's their
job to decide (as you've put it) "...how far [we are] going to go with tailoring the experience..." whether it's for the the individual, the society, the region, or the country. (Being a censor is a full-time position!)
The key to this, as it is to pretty much anything in the world which can result in any level of argument, is
compromise. People need to respect the wishes of others, and they need to respect the roof under which they sit -- whether they like it or not. Is that perfect? Nope. What is?
The issue arises when people start believing that their own, personal interpretations of any matter are somehow
superior to others.
(And before anyone tries to play the, "But-that's-what-censors-do-!!!" card -- YES. EXACTLY. That's what the
authorities are there for. That's their whole purpose. In order to achieve a compromise, there needs to be a
judicial body. So, there will always be a few, unfortunate people tasked with the
responsibility of walking the censorship tightrope in high winds, trying to stem off social upheaval. Having a problem with that reality is not having a problem with "censorship"; it's having a problem with
authority. [Because, as history shows us, human beings, when left to their own devices, are so, sooo, soooooo amazingly good at solving problems themselves. Without structure or leadership.
If people don't like
authorities making decisions that affect the masses, I recommend they try
settling Mars. Maybe
that will be different.
But I doubt it.])
No. The long and the short of it is that releasing controversial material in any form across differing censorship laws will require compromise -- but it's the same consideration both ways:
1.) As a censor, do I want to forego all of the economic gains, popularity, and satisfaction that I stand to receive if I reject this material? Do the gains for censoring it outweigh the gains for allowing it?
2.) As a creator, do I want to forego all of the economic gains, popularity, and satisfaction that I stand to receive if I allow the censorship of my material? Do the gains for resisting the censorship outweigh the gains for allowing it?
Hence, we have the system we have today.
Now, my personal opinion -- despite everything I just wrote -- is that I hate censorship. I believe that people need to be responsible for their own actions and decisions. I believe that trying to suppress a thing immediately makes it
taboo...which in turn, is most appealing to young and impressionable minds --
exactly the minds that the censorship is trying to protect. I believe censorship exacerbates most situations instead of managing them...and the proof is in the pudding. Anyone on this planet can access any material they want if they have enough tech savvy. And that's a skill that's becoming commonplace. "Censoring" something is basically putting a neon sign over the offending material that reads, "All the cool, taboo stuff you're looking for is RIGHT HERE!" And people are going to see it anyway.
But -- despite everything I just wrote -- I do not support chaos and disorder. Censorship is in place, and using the systems we have is far more important to me than trying to "revolutionize" everything every 15 minutes. No solid, constructive change ever happens quickly. Plus, everything will always turn out exactly as it must, regardless of how we feel about it. So learning to deal with the situations at hand and just, gently,
nudge them in a certain direction is the absolute best anyone can ever do...
without making things worse.
In other words...
compromise.