PETITION: Continue to sell Grand Theft Auto 5 in Australia
- Thread starter SkullCap
- Start date
A Quick look on their website says yes. They sell a lot of different Bible related stuff as well including an audio book form, Kid's First Bible and other suck things.Vault101 said:
Are you kidding? That's not just funny, it made my day.erttheking said:
But all the tweets seem to mention #gamergate, so I'm not sure it's ethical.
That's not surprising, though. If we take Confirmation Bias as a given then it would be surprising if game-positive studies weren't the most regarded. Of course, if we take the flipside of that, most game-negative studies in recent years that have both passed peer review and gained media attention have been the work of Dr Bushman. That in itself doesn't really mean anything but it has resulted in there being a distinct lack of supporting studies and a rather thin body of work to draw on.Skatologist said:
Of course both sides tend to ignore the bulk of studies that are either inconclusive or essentially say violent games have no greater psychological effects than other violent media.
Anyway, the point that I originally intended to make (and looks like I forgot to) was that the study itself doesn't make any claims of cause, it only states that its data shows a significant correlation, possibly causal or as a contributing factor.
'Correlation does not imply causation' is a soundbite not a practical way to approach scientific analysis. As you say, when a strong correlation exists if its not causal its often a matter of identifying a 3rd variable that affects both.
If you're a professional pedant I supppose you could... otherwise you run into reducto ad absurdum really quick or turn into an extistentialist.
Speaking of professional pendants...
Although they did have the advantage of the 'mind' being a non-physical concept which is mostly opaque to observation. While we've coome leaps and bounds with ways to observe the brain (fMRIs and zombie salmon not withstanding), observing the mind still heavily relies on asking people what's going on (although we've refined our questions a lot over time).
Of course, if you take affective states as being the same emotions then their point went right out the window when research started on externally introduced neurotransmitters... Unless you're the kind of person who wants to argue that 'the mind as a black box' means we can never be 100% certain, which can make for interesting dinner conversation but won't fly in a more scientifically rigorous forum.
always interesting to see cultural differencesDeimosMasque said:
I thought we all already knew that? or was it wrong for me to assume everyone was just really really upset about the welfare of Australian gamers what with the spiders making homes In our PC cases?mecegirl said:
[sub/]or did we think teh gamers were just being oppressed as usual?[/sub]
Well, as long as teh wimminz are oppressing real gamers, we're naturally going to be concerned. As soon as we show the victims of domestic abuse who made the petition what's what, we'll let you get back to your normal level of censorship, un-outraged.Vault101 said:
Seriously, I forgot that one of the weapons in SRIV was excluded from Australia because of actual LAWS.
No it's not censorship, but it does show that corporations will listen to petitions, so yeah it's important to let them know that gamers who want to buy games live in Australia. It's the principle of the thing more than the actual details. I know it's easy to dismiss as a slippery slope argument but if people don't discourage these kind of busy body "think of the children" campaigns then it's going to keep happening.
It doesn't matter if you live in Australia if you don't shop at Target. If you don't, you might as well be in the States (like many of the outraged already are). Target is concerned about a consumer base. They're not concerned about gamers as a whole.Revolutionary said:
Do you buy games at Target?
I actually bought GTA5 at Target when it came out on the XBOX360. It's one of my favorite games on that system. And to this little protests that got the Australian Target to stop carrying it I have this to say this:Zachary Amaranth said:
SO FUCKING WHAT!?
I bought GTA5 from Target just because it was the closest retailer that was selling it. If there is a Target in you area... there's a GAME, a Sam's Club, a... every other store that sells video games.
It's still out there, you can still buy it. Why is this a thing at all?
Ouch.Zachary Amaranth said:
Yeah, some places here have some shitty pornographic/lads mags covered below the title. That's usually because the cover is a pretty accurate representation of the mag, talking about their various stars, fucks, and pictures.
I really get annoyed by these people. We live in a world where men complain that women don't give them fair attention or manners, or that the guys who keep saying "Hi" or trying to strike up conversations with women who they are obviously attracted too are often ignored, but these people never consider it from the other person's view. I really think that the best solution is to hit on them forcefully as a guy when you see that.
If you're not entirely unappealing, chances are you'll be hit on by someone of the same sex at some point, some more obviously than others, and you'll have to deal with that, and just about everyone else already has to, it's just straight men copping exactly what everyone else gets.
Couldn't say, but I'd think probably no. I haven't run through the story missions on LC Stories or VC Stories, although playing vigilante in a tank on PSP was a laugh.
I think GTA would need to be funny or insightful to be good satire. When it's not funny or not insightful, it's pretty bad satire. At the very least from that character sheet, the joke is transphobic stereotypes, and the insight is hate speech. Count me out.
I'm also pro-boycott. I don't disagree with consumer action, I disagree with why some consumers start their consumer action.
Potentially. They can still say that the content is innapropriate for an R rating (Which has some reasoning behind it, for instance, child pornography shouldn't get an R or an X rating, and snuff films shouldn't recieve ratings etc). What usually happens instead though, is that game developers and publishers understand that the Australian system is unpredictable, and overly conservative, and that the classifications board seems to have little experience with games, or interest in them. So the trend recently isn't submit, reject, modify approve, it's just modifying it because they can't be bothered. We're not the largest market, and we've got a very high piracy rate for a lot of content (Thanks to television networks and movie studios delaying Australian releases), so it's not worth the bother.
IIRC, AvP's last game was refused classification prior to the R rating for the high impact violence and dismemberment, but they refused to make changes and the game was sold with an MA rating, 15+. Australian Gamers don't have much faith in the governments understanding of technology and games (And that goes further with Ministers Stephen Conroy and Malcolm Turnbull, Communications ministers who don't understand the internet).
I agree. The thing is, retailers are interested in doing what they need to do to cover their ass, and not more, so we're playing the games with children, and it's annoying. I'm really sick of the 14 year old /b/ kids joining my games after 1 am and either ruining it, or spending the match talking about homos and faggots. Their parents should be ashamed, and the store that sold them the game should be too.
For some reason the image won't go through for me, the referral is denied.
I haven't dismissed anyone, or assumed anything of anyone. I've guessed, based on a feeling, that it's more than a few in the overlap. Don't bring in the logical fallacy shit when you can't even parse the sentence which doesn't contain an argument. Done with the misrepresentations, you're on my block list.WhiteNachos said:
Poes Law beat you to it. Nuclear Kangaroo had that rubbish going in the other thread. I do love how a poem about solidarity and standing up for marginalised groups against oppression is used to justify slippery slopes. I also love the implication that trying to wipe out the disabled, queer, Jewish, ethnically different in general, as well as political opposition, resulting in the deaths of millions, is in any way comparable to one store not selling one game, which happens all the time for various reasons.Zachary Amaranth said:
Damn EB games retroactively got on the censorship bandwagon by not selling me a copy of Turok a couple of years ago. Except they did it because the game was terrible and sold poorly. Still, damn you time travelling nazis!
Indeed.
I think I worded that a bit forcefully. I'm in agreement with you about the Not Your Shield stuff, my contempt for that particular hashtag and the people who fill it is hard to contain.
Additionally, that Gamergate specifically attacked a series of articles which argued that the audience was more diverse, and should continue to be "Gamers are Dead" and the others, and has a continuing problem with "SJW"s and feminists, and articles and think pieces discussing race, gender, sexuality and inclusivity. They attacked in a vile, abusive and misogynistic manner a female developer, and expanded to complaining that they couldn't do that, or that people thought sites shouldn't host that, and that there's a problem with these discussions. They argued against encouraging inclusivity, and they brought their black friend, their gay best friend, their vagina'd friend, to tell us that they weren't at all bigotted, but we really shouldn't talk about openning gaming up to a more diverse cast and perhaps one or two fewer white guys with brown hair and stubble graduating to a beard who are involved romantically and sexually with women (And as a white guy, who's hair when not dyed obscenely is brown, though now far too long to do the Nathan Drake bit, and who wears stubble graduating to a beard who is involved romantically and sexually with a woman... I agree, because it's boring as hell).
I saw the Review Tech USA screenshot as well. Classic. Yeah women, don't you love GTA, also, women eh, better decorate my video with some of them, somehow the only images I have are objectifying and misogynistic. I don't see how this could be patronising or demeaning at all to women. *Sigh*. Geeks, grow some fucking self awareness and put your damn porn away and maybe women will touch your dangle. Alternatively, date men, who feel less threatened by this, and at least then if your porn is the same it's not demeaning them (Although I don't imagine they'll think you'll be much fun) or at least it's demeaning you both in the same way. Couldn't put modern Lara Croft on there. Couldn't put Ellie from TLOU on there. Couldn't put a create a character there from one of the games with that.
And of course, American. Don't need your help with this guys, I saw what happened when you tried to help the Iraqis. That I can do without.
In my experience, there's more than a few women who are dismissive of gender issues and feminism, particularly young women and women in geek culture, and I'd hazard a guess that the sexism of a lot of the scene filters out those who aren't especially tolerant of this shit, or ok with it themselves. I'm friends with one who does this, and it's an irritating schtick. Her last one was complaining that street harrassment isn't a problem, because reasons, and that there's all sorts of problems with the Walking in NYC video(There are, but she wouldn't be on board with those because she's kind of racist) because not all women experience that exact amount of harrassment (Which is a spectacular way to miss the point). They bailed after the obvious point that such harrassment exists, even in Australia (I even copped it from some stupid bogan fuck who apparently mistook me for a woman from behind with my long hair, and he said he'd been considering dragging me into the bushes and raping me, and if I was a woman he wouldn't think twice. So funny! Of course, how he mistook me at 6 foot and 100 kilos, with incredibly broad shoulders and in massive steel toed combat boots as a woman I don't know. I also had a couple of bogans make a bunch of obscene gestures to my girlfriend in their car behind us because they saw her glance back because they were pumping shitty rap out of their stupid skyline that's just waiting to fail a spot check). And that any amount of that is strictly not ok.
Eh, I've seen that sort of thing too, but I think that gets too close to the mechanism thing, where people complain about perception and being percieved and ignore the basis which is the real concern. It's kind of like the boycott bit with the mechanism of boycott being called censorship, and GG is almost guaranteed to respond with their bit about the media.
Feminism has a negative perception, because of several things, and I think it's almost a whole threads worth (Unfortunately, it'd be a shitstorm).
I'd list
-Misconceptions about feminism (Any bit on AS, or the bit about feminists wanting to kill men, or hating men, etc)
-The use of fringe ideas to discredit it (For instance, a bunch of TF00T and The Reprehensible Atheist's content)
-The fact that the world is sexist, and resists changing from sexism. If the world weren't sexist, there wouldn't be an opposition to much of the progress wanted by feminism. And people don't realise they're sexist, and will proclaim that they're pro-woman, or women, whilst refusing to move for Abortion, proper investigation of Rape, proper Prosecution of Rape, for better informing people about consent, and for female employment, pay, and representation to improve. Yet they don't think they're sexist, and will bristle at the thought, though their opposition is anti-woman.
That's the same for every progressive movement in history. People didn't think they were unfair or unjust for their treatment of black people, yet it took far too much time and bloodshed for progress to reach the point it's at now. And people still complain about current civil rights efforts by black Americans today, even though they're definitely not racist, but "PantsUpDon'tLoot". Because the inconvenience of black people fighting for their freedom is worse than the inconvenience of racism, and racism on the part of say, the police force, for black people. Protesting is inconvenient, for all involved, and it doesn't start for a laugh. (There's even a thread on here about it, where people say how in favour of black people's rights they are, but they think that the ways in which they go about it is too inconvenient. Somehow I think Tamir Rice would have found being shot more inconvenient than the road you wanted being closed down.
People don't think they're homophobic. They just don't like same sex people kissing in public. They just don't think they should get married. They just don't think they're equal to other people. They just don't think they should express it, or remain closeted forever. Whatever makes life most easy for them, and involves the least progress and self examination.
None of these would need advocates if people didn't oppose them on bigotted grounds. I'm not saying that I agree with all feminists and their ideas(I hate read Jezebel waaaaay too often), but there's a significant amount of people who disagree with the very notion of feminism, and make these ridiculous statements about it being anti men, ignoring the part where it got women the right to vote and helped to criminalise things like marital rape, and created shelters for women suffering from abuse. History lessons are in order, as always. People wouldn't face oppression if the attempts to rectify oppression weren't always opposed. The KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church don't have the numbers to oppress anyone. That's on society as a whole. If society weren't racist, the KKK wouldn't accomplish shit.
Whichever way it's swung, feminism has accomplished a lot of good, and a lot of the ideas there are worthwhile and worth pursuing, and there is guaranteed to be opposition just on the premise. And there have been terrible feminists, egregious examples being homophobic and transphobic feminists. They're typically rejected by the mainstream, and their ideas have not stood the test of time. On the whole, most of the negative perceptions are unfounded, and the positives (And often the real aim) ignored.
GG hasn't done much positive (Donating to one campaign for one game out of spite, and a few updated policies in Game Journalism isn't a civil rights victory. You didn't take down Rupert Murdoch guys.) and has done a lot of negative shit (We remember how this started still). It started with people lying about some articles, trying to get gamers riled up (Bolo The Great had a nice string of trying to get people in on it), pretending that gamers were being called terrorists when people complained about harrassment and SWATting, harrassing Zoe Quinn. None of these are noble goals. Some of them are explictly goals against making gaming less shitty, excluding the SWATters and the harrassers and abusers, and being more inclusive as a whole. And a significant number of the people involved are terrible bigots, abusers, and monsters, and yet aren't rejected out of hand.
-Milo and Breitbart.
-Mike Cernovich.
-Thunderf00t.
-InternetAristocrat.
-Roosh Valizadeh
-Christina Hoff Sommers
-It's tempting to list David Aurini and Jordan Owen, considering the overlap between the Sarkeesian stuff and GG
-Matt Forney
-Adamn Baldwin
Prominent GGers, the ones people remember, are in fact, sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, scummy, shitty people. The biggest exception being TotalBiscuit(His association with the mess aside).
And the megathread's still open, for all the horrible things you could want to read. As are the smaller threads which have spawned. It wouldn't take long to accumulate all of the nasty you would need to feel that there's something wrong (Kind of like how certain areas of the internet, like certain social justice types or feminist types on Tumblr, Wordpress, or whatever, are often isolated, and nasty beyond most tolerance) with the way this is done. There's also 8chan, and a couple of other locations. Annoying forum and twitter posts make up 99% of GG's output, and they paint an overwhelmingly negative view. Complaining that that's not GG, or that GG doesn't support Harrassment (Which is why it grew out of the Quinn thing, ofc), etc, is the norm, but there's nowhere where that isn't the case. There isn't any rejection of this going on. There isn't the infighting. There isn't the thinking.
Part and parcel of this is the fact that anyone can claim their position as GG, but there's only so long you can say journalistic integrity and link Breitbart or Milo, or that you're a feminist and link CHS, or that you're not a homophobe whilst participating in a movement named by Adam Baldwin. It's not like GG is the only avenue for integrity, but it is one that excludes a wide variety of perspectives and people, and that seems to be part of the appeal. Whilst I'd rather not have my reviews sponsored by doritos, or bribed by WB to not mention any flaws, I don't need something which started with misogynistic harrassment to think that.
-Misconceptions about feminism (Any bit on AS, or the bit about feminists wanting to kill men, or hating men, etc)
-The use of fringe ideas to discredit it (For instance, a bunch of TF00T and The Reprehensible Atheist's content)
-The fact that the world is sexist, and resists changing from sexism. If the world weren't sexist, there wouldn't be an opposition to much of the progress wanted by feminism. And people don't realise they're sexist, and will proclaim that they're pro-woman, or women, whilst refusing to move for Abortion, proper investigation of Rape, proper Prosecution of Rape, for better informing people about consent, and for female employment, pay, and representation to improve. Yet they don't think they're sexist, and will bristle at the thought, though their opposition is anti-woman.
That's the same for every progressive movement in history. People didn't think they were unfair or unjust for their treatment of black people, yet it took far too much time and bloodshed for progress to reach the point it's at now. And people still complain about current civil rights efforts by black Americans today, even though they're definitely not racist, but "PantsUpDon'tLoot". Because the inconvenience of black people fighting for their freedom is worse than the inconvenience of racism, and racism on the part of say, the police force, for black people. Protesting is inconvenient, for all involved, and it doesn't start for a laugh. (There's even a thread on here about it, where people say how in favour of black people's rights they are, but they think that the ways in which they go about it is too inconvenient. Somehow I think Tamir Rice would have found being shot more inconvenient than the road you wanted being closed down.
People don't think they're homophobic. They just don't like same sex people kissing in public. They just don't think they should get married. They just don't think they're equal to other people. They just don't think they should express it, or remain closeted forever. Whatever makes life most easy for them, and involves the least progress and self examination.
None of these would need advocates if people didn't oppose them on bigotted grounds. I'm not saying that I agree with all feminists and their ideas(I hate read Jezebel waaaaay too often), but there's a significant amount of people who disagree with the very notion of feminism, and make these ridiculous statements about it being anti men, ignoring the part where it got women the right to vote and helped to criminalise things like marital rape, and created shelters for women suffering from abuse. History lessons are in order, as always. People wouldn't face oppression if the attempts to rectify oppression weren't always opposed. The KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church don't have the numbers to oppress anyone. That's on society as a whole. If society weren't racist, the KKK wouldn't accomplish shit.
Whichever way it's swung, feminism has accomplished a lot of good, and a lot of the ideas there are worthwhile and worth pursuing, and there is guaranteed to be opposition just on the premise. And there have been terrible feminists, egregious examples being homophobic and transphobic feminists. They're typically rejected by the mainstream, and their ideas have not stood the test of time. On the whole, most of the negative perceptions are unfounded, and the positives (And often the real aim) ignored.
GG hasn't done much positive (Donating to one campaign for one game out of spite, and a few updated policies in Game Journalism isn't a civil rights victory. You didn't take down Rupert Murdoch guys.) and has done a lot of negative shit (We remember how this started still). It started with people lying about some articles, trying to get gamers riled up (Bolo The Great had a nice string of trying to get people in on it), pretending that gamers were being called terrorists when people complained about harrassment and SWATting, harrassing Zoe Quinn. None of these are noble goals. Some of them are explictly goals against making gaming less shitty, excluding the SWATters and the harrassers and abusers, and being more inclusive as a whole. And a significant number of the people involved are terrible bigots, abusers, and monsters, and yet aren't rejected out of hand.
-Milo and Breitbart.
-Mike Cernovich.
-Thunderf00t.
-InternetAristocrat.
-Roosh Valizadeh
-Christina Hoff Sommers
-It's tempting to list David Aurini and Jordan Owen, considering the overlap between the Sarkeesian stuff and GG
-Matt Forney
-Adamn Baldwin
Prominent GGers, the ones people remember, are in fact, sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, scummy, shitty people. The biggest exception being TotalBiscuit(His association with the mess aside).
And the megathread's still open, for all the horrible things you could want to read. As are the smaller threads which have spawned. It wouldn't take long to accumulate all of the nasty you would need to feel that there's something wrong (Kind of like how certain areas of the internet, like certain social justice types or feminist types on Tumblr, Wordpress, or whatever, are often isolated, and nasty beyond most tolerance) with the way this is done. There's also 8chan, and a couple of other locations. Annoying forum and twitter posts make up 99% of GG's output, and they paint an overwhelmingly negative view. Complaining that that's not GG, or that GG doesn't support Harrassment (Which is why it grew out of the Quinn thing, ofc), etc, is the norm, but there's nowhere where that isn't the case. There isn't any rejection of this going on. There isn't the infighting. There isn't the thinking.
Part and parcel of this is the fact that anyone can claim their position as GG, but there's only so long you can say journalistic integrity and link Breitbart or Milo, or that you're a feminist and link CHS, or that you're not a homophobe whilst participating in a movement named by Adam Baldwin. It's not like GG is the only avenue for integrity, but it is one that excludes a wide variety of perspectives and people, and that seems to be part of the appeal. Whilst I'd rather not have my reviews sponsored by doritos, or bribed by WB to not mention any flaws, I don't need something which started with misogynistic harrassment to think that.
Oh shit, I was meant to bring a weapon. Monk style it is, unarmed combat of 100.
Yeah, the difference being I'm not whipped up into a histrionic fury over something that I've blown out of proportion, so I know how much of a jerk I come off as.Skatologist said:
It really does seem to be an issue of "what about meeeeeeeee, the straight white male gamer who likes these specific games? Won't someone thing about meeeeeeee?" most of the time. I honestly think that's what pissed people off most about the "gamers are dead" articles. I mean, that many people couldn't have misread them, right?
Rich has long been the arbiter of which women in games are legit and which aren't, and which women deserve harassment and which don't. The lead-in image is probably the least horrible thing in a list of crap he's said or done. He doesn't care about women gamers (except the ones he deems "legit"), he's butthurt because someone's coming to take his games away. He really is a disgusting human being.
I'm still trying to remember what keywords I used to find it, or who linked me to it.
In fairness, we haven't had any real censorship over here (games related), and we seem to be the bulk of the complainers. I think in the lack of any real oppression, we start to make this sort of shit up. I know this gets into heavier stuff, but I'm surprised I haven't seen a serious number of posts online about how white people are the real victims of the Ferguson MO shooting.DeimosMasque said:
Oh, the Wal-Mart here covers fitness mags even. Granted, some of those talk about sex, but still.Loonyyy said:
Isn't that the old joke, though? That what men are really afraid of is that another man will treat them as badly as they treat women?
I somehow doubt it's good, either. I have fun with GTA games, but I kind of roll my eyes at a lot of the "satire."
Exactly.
Wait, what? They refused classification, no changes were made, and they sold it anyway?
Well, for what it's worth, in America they just buy the games for their kids. And "don't you tell me how to raise my kids" is a very common phrase.
Australia is clearly censoring it. Anyway, if you're interested (for the context), you can look on IMDB for "porky's." The cover isn't like, totally dirty, but considering what Wal-Mart covers up, it's hilarious that this was stocked, on a lower shelf, outside the closed system of the electronics department, and didn't bring up a 17 or older flag at the register.
I'm really, REALLY not surprised.Loonyyy said:
This is just the first step in the feminazi regime's plan to take over Austalia. Or something.
Not that I blame you. It's been less than twelve hours since I've seen it used to justify the notion that SJWs are the real bigots.
It's particularly telling that they had to beg and lie to get people onboard in the first place. And then they're like "look, they hate these things, too!" I mean, there are women who are dismissive of women's rights, blacks who are opposed to black rights, and gays who are opposed to gay rights. But like I said, whenever I see #notyourshield, it's almost always something like outrage at the "gamers are dead" articles. Something untrue, except in the echo chamber.
I think I quoted you in the big reply where I also touched on this, but I think the video is one of the least problematic things Rich has said or done about women. He's routinely criticised "fake" girl gamers with little criteria outside of appearance (which does make the images he chose kind of funny, but still), asked what girls "expect" in terms of harassment, and routinely gone after "feminazis" for mild or even imaginary issues. He recently put up a video where he said a lot of people are surprised he's pro-woman because he doesn't have a shrine of Anita Sarkeesian in his place or something to that effect. Howabout because his videos are dickish to women routinely? Not to mention, this is the guy who couldn't even say Anita shouldn't be harmed because harming someone is wrong. He instead said it was because she was irrelevant--something he sort of undermined with his recent video promoting a petition to stop her from being involved in a game she isn't involved in.
Rich has been really disgusting of late. T&A shots of video game characters is probably the least of it, though.
I can't imagine this going well. Especially since Rich relies on a lithpy gay voith to make his strawman arguments.
Hey! As an American I'm offended!
...well, not really.
I also notice a lot of it comes from people who have likely never been openly discriminated against. I can't speak to your friends, obviously, and my view is mostly American, but still.
I just want some consistency. Not "feminism is poisoned because perception" from people who complain that we totes have Gamergate wrong because you can't judge them based on public perception. Or the "bad apples" argument, where bad apples from one group prove the movement is bad, and bad apples from another don't prove anything because ponies.
And I snipped the spoiled stuff for length, but a couple of things that really do bug me in all that are the notions that "journalistic ethics" should derive from a group who has so routinely lied, and more specifically how unevenly they apply it. I haven't seen one Gamergater complain about the article on the Escapist dealing with this issue showing a clear bias by editorialising.
And lo, did the social justice wars begin.
Folk who seem really mad about this:
American gamers with a passionate interest in telling stores that make 80% of their money selling clothing to housewives that their financial decisions only matter from a needlessly political reading.
Folk who don't seem to care:
Australian gamers who know that any game yo might want to buy from Target you could get $10 cheaper at Big W or buy two and get one free at EB Games of JB HiFi.
American gamers with a passionate interest in telling stores that make 80% of their money selling clothing to housewives that their financial decisions only matter from a needlessly political reading.
Folk who don't seem to care:
Australian gamers who know that any game yo might want to buy from Target you could get $10 cheaper at Big W or buy two and get one free at EB Games of JB HiFi.
not really, nobody is asking you to stop believing in social justice and whatever, what we are trying to do isIceForce said:
1) more transparency in gaming journalism and less corruption
2) stop people with political goals from bullying and meddling with game development
you can express your opinions, you cant bully people to make them do what you want
asking for journalistic ethics is in no want shape or form censorship, is asking whose job is X to do X betterZhukov said:
i mean i what freaking universe is asking a journalist to show more transparency and perform better research censorship? holy cow
also are you going to argue targeting retailers isnt going to influence the decisions of publishers regarding games?
its 2 stores now, what if this campaign continues?Zachary Amaranth said:
look at me, i can get my news easily and express myself via the internet, but to argue freedom of press and speech isnt heavily attacked in my country would be ridiculous and i already explained why