Adding a "We don't support Connor McGregor and he will be removed in all future games" disclaimer would be just as beneficial as removing him.

I'm with VenomUK. Games are just as big as Hollywood movies. The budgets and revenue often exceed Hollywood. If Connor McGregor went on a killing spree, murdered women and children, then killed the president and enslaved the entire country (except myself, who he lets chill and play video games), i still wouldn't be okay with them removing content from a game I paid for. That's fundamentally messed up - and yet again, a perfect reason to buy physical media where you can access the 1.0 build. Last Guardian 60fps and Connor McGregor are disc exclusive :)

@VenomUK
Don't forget Naked Gun too, an underrated classic.

I'm with you on this one. I see it as pointless and even harmful. Not only you're changing the game to the worse (removing content), but the person you're trying to «remove» already got the fame and money from the exposure, so what's the point? Virtue signaling? It's not like he's getting paid for every in-game kill or something.

And especially doing this in Hitman games, all you do is killing him in the game, why remove him at all?! Advertise your game with «We added even more ways to kill this elusive target», so people would vent in the game instead of on social media.

Also, what happens if he'll appeal and win? Will they apologize and patch him back or what?

Another thing, this is why online-only future is awful, they can do whatever they want with YOUR copy of the game and you have no say in it. You can't even back it up to preserve the content.

You are writing your reply as if they intend to go through the game and replace his image. If you actually read the article, you will see they are simply cutting ties and ensuring they do not use his image in their marketing, and no longer making a single assassination available which was only available for a short time anyway.
This seems to me to be a valid way of protecting your brand and company image from association with a violent, rapist?
Such an action is a very long way away from editing the star of a film out of the whole film, and I wander what possible motive you have for trying to equate the two? A company trying to protect its image is a very long way away from censorship.