Target Audience

[themilo504]

If this was meant as a joke it?s really not that funny, if this was meant to be serious then I have to say that its silly if you think this is anything more than a publicity stunt, a publicity stunt that?s setting a rather dangerous precedent.

 

[Something Amyss]

you know what I am done on this point. I have tried to point out how whether or not target actually selling the bible didn't matter as the point was that the logic can be used to pull anything off store shelves, even a book that most of the "family market" that got offended hold sacred, but clearly we disagree on that point.

Actually, even if the Australian market holds the Bible as specifically sacred, and I don't know the numbers of devout religious folks there, it doesn't prove that anything can be banned. The Bible is a horrible book full of horrible things. It is full of many more horrible things than video games. They didn't even have to misrepresent it to call the book misogynistic. This doesn't demonstrate anything can be banned. At worst, it demonstrates that Australian consumers are hypocrites who are okay with rape and mistreatment of women as long as God is cool with it.

Bananas are your top selling fruit but members of your largest demographic are threatening to boycott the store because they are too phallic.

But this is completely irrelevant, unless you can provide evidence that GTAV or even games in general are a top-selling product at Target in Australia.

I'd point out that if Target/KMart decided that the PR was worth not selling GTA 5 it probably means they weren't expecting to sell a whole lot to begin with. Now I don't live in Australia, but generally when I think Target the first thing I think of is generally not "video games".

Anyways, petition was pretty dumb in principle, but I can't really blame Target for anything business-wise though.

In the US, I used to buy a lot of entertainment stuff at Target, because they were competitive in price with Wal-Mart, had a better stock in terms of games and movies, had more routine sales, and didn't sell only the censored versions of records. However, it is a different continent, culture, and even a different treatment of the medium.

But yeah, it also seems highly unlikely that Target did this if they expected to see a lot of sales from GTA compared to sales from the boycotters.

So the anti-Petition was a success! Boy, it sure is easy to win when there isn't a struggle in the first place.

I wonder if that's the spin the protesters are going to put on this. That they won without a fight.

 

[Something Amyss]

Boycotts and calls for censorship are always irrational and stupid.

So you're against Gamergate, right?

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Boycotts and calls for censorship are always irrational and stupid.

So you're against Gamergate, right?

I don't understand what a discussion on ethics in gaming journalism has to do with boycotts/censorship.

 

[mrbah]

yes, aliens posting "ayy lmao" and schlomo goldbergstein from israeltown, israel are certainly customers of oceanic stores.
stores should listen to their customers, not an online petition.

 

[DataSnake]

oh,....and the so-called "GTA knock-off" Saints Row 3 & 4. How is it that they have that game, which basically allows most everything that GTA allows, still and there's been no uproar on it?

Probably a combination of the fact that Saints Row isn't as much of a household name as GTA and the fact that, irreverent as the series is, it's actually one of the most inclusive franchises in the AAA space.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't understand what a discussion on ethics in gaming journalism has to do with boycotts/censorship.

Neither do I, but I was talking about gamergate, the group behind a boycott against multiple publications who said things they didn't like.

I mean, if you want to talk ethics in gaming journalism, that's fine. But I asked about Gamergate, so stop changing the subject.

 

[Something Amyss]

and the so-called "GTA knock-off" Saints Row 3 & 4. How is it that they have that game, which basically allows most everything that GTA allows, still and there's been no uproar on it? It's hypocritical on a large scale.

When can you receive sex from prostitutes and then kill them in either game?

 

[Dark Knifer]

That's kind of the point, and it's a shame you're too busy being offended to not understand that. Hell, a number of the people screaming censorship have supported other boycotts or made the exact argument that companies should listen to their customers. Hell, NuclearKangaroo has unironically declared in this very thread we should let the market decide, apparently not understanding that this petition was market forces in action. This is a strawman only if you ignore reality and censorship only in the same sense that you deciding not to read this comic anymore because you don't like its content is censorship.

I agree with you mostly except with the idea of market force. Since the nature of this petition website is international not just Australian, there is no way to prove that any of target customers actually participated in this petition, if my understanding of the website functionality is to be believed.

I agree its not censorship though.

 

[Jakabok]

Scroobius Pip in the sign off again? Cory and Grey you gotta stop doing this, I already love you guys enough without using my favorite poet to draw me in further.

 

[truckspond]

The game is on sale in Australia in other stores. The fact that it was not refused classification means that the classification board found absolutely no evidence of either direct or implied sexual violence, which is what the petition is based on anyway. If people that do this kind of thing for a living could not find any evidence of what the petition is based on then why has Target (And Kmart) listened to it?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't really care that they're not stocking GTA5 anymore because
a) I don't live in Australia
b) I don't shop at Target
c) I don't play GTA
d) And the only ones getting hurt by this are Target and K-Mart.

ON a side note:
FUCK OFF CAPTCHA!!

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Hey, the customer demanded Target to remove it, they removed it. That's perfectly fine.
However, since you're so quick to jump into their defense, we, well not me but other customer have the exact same right to demand it back and the company has the right to bring it back.

I've too many people calling those who are against this all kinds of bad things and this shit is stupid. Both sides are customer both have the right to ask Target for stuff. People keep trying to shut up others in order to feel like they are on the moral high ground, but they aren't. Those people are on the lowest level of moral. Both sides have the right to ask a private owned company.

Also, it is the same as what Nazi's did. Just because it's a privately owned company doesn't mean they aren't trying to get something censor that they dislike. The only difference is, Nazi's had power, these people don't. If they had, they would behave exactly the same. Normal people wouldn't demand from other people to stop liking things because they themselves dislike them. This is something that literally little immature children do.

 

[Ickorus]

This shit from the same people who would go fucking batshit if people tried to pull a game from shelves for having a gay character.

Well done, hypocrites.

 

[theNater]

Bananas are your top selling fruit but members of your largest demographic are threatening to boycott the store because they are too phallic. What do you do?

That doesn't make any sense. If the largest demographic objects to bananas, who's buying enough of them to make them the top selling fruit?

 

[Redryhno]

Bananas are your top selling fruit but members of your largest demographic are threatening to boycott the store because they are too phallic. What do you do?

That doesn't make any sense. If the largest demographic objects to bananas, who's buying enough of them to make them the top selling fruit?

The largest demographic of the store, not the fruit aisle.

 

[The Wooster]

I hate that censorship has become a thing where we can excuse just solely on "private company" excuse.

I hate that the word censorship is fucking meaningless because people use it to refer to anything they don't like. Target also doesn't sell AO games and/or pornography. That's not censorship, it's a company refusing to sell a product. Calling it censorship is not only wrong, it actually cheapens the word and the experiences of those who face actual censorship.

 

[MoonWhispers]

I hate how much the English language is being abused in this thread. You can disagree with Target all you want, but it's capitalism, not censorship. They carry prolly less than 10% of every game, movie, book, and TV show available (nevermind clothes, food, furniture, medicines, health products and art), and that is not censorship. It doesn't suddenly become censorship just because they listen to customer complaints about a game they prolly barely even sell anymore (since everyone already bought it). Oh, and Target is not owned by the government, so therefore it's not censorship. But, details, right?

 

[NiPah]

I hate that censorship has become a thing where we can excuse just solely on "private company" excuse.

I hate that the word censorship is fucking meaningless because people use it to refer to anything they don't like. Target also doesn't sell AO games and/or pornography. That's not censorship, it's a company refusing to sell a product. Calling it censorship is not only wrong, it actually cheapens the word and the experiences of those who face actual censorship.

Is Censorship really a word we have to guard from being "cheapened" though? On the one hand we have government censorship on a grand scale like we see in China, on the other hand we have my Disturbed CD "censored version" that I bought 13 years ago so I could get it past the parents.

It's not really a government that's censoring American Pie so people can see boobs, it's just a company choosing to label their product with the buzzword "uncensored version" to sell it to more people.

I agree, this doesn't really fit the definition of censorship since it's not like they're removing content, they're just not stocking the product to begin with, but that's not really what people are arguing...

 

[Bigeyez]

Sorry if you think this is censorship you are plain wrong. As a consumer are only rights are being able to buy a product and getting what we pay for. We are not entitled to have that product sold at the nearest store.

Target can choose to sell or not sell GTA just like it can choose to sell or not to sell Playboy Magazine or Milk or whatever the heck else. Them making that choice is not censorship, period.

What is censorship is the laws Australia used to have that banned any 18 rated game. That DOES stop people from buying it anywhere.

Target not stocking a game simply limits the purchasing options but does not stop an Australian from buying it.