Target Audience

[Something Amyss]

It's not a question of 'saying things they don't like' but outright LIES.

Yes, the problem is who lied. Usually, it's Gamergate.

 

[IceForce]

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.

It's not a question of 'saying things they don't like' but outright LIES.

Out of interest, which part of the "gamers are dead" articles would you consider to be 'lies'?

 

[Something Amyss]

Can't you just buy it somewhere else?

That's the funny thing. If you listen to the Aussies, virtually nobody buys games at Target anyway.

I would love to live in your version of history where the Nazis actually just ran a chain of retail shops rather than a government.

Oh man, that would be awesome. I wonder if everyone would still be compared to Hitler on the internet if all he did was not stock video games we want in countries we don't live in.

 

[Arean]

Censorship, as defined by the ACLU:

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.

While you can argue that that's not what happened here, I would consider it a technicality at best. Yes, it is of course incredibly hyperbolic to compare it to Nazi germany, but that doesn't make it A-OK.

What worries me more than this particular incident is the precedent it sets, and the slippery slope it represents. That ball is already rolling, first with a similar store chain in New Zealand pulling all R18+ material from their shelves, and, last I heard, with the Norwegian Women's Front (claiming to speak for all women no less) publically petitioning for the game to be banned from all stores in Norway, spouting the same fabrications and unsupported claims of real-life consequencs as the original petition did.

Frankly, although I absolutely concede to the fact that Target were (of course) well within their rights to do what they did, I'm surprised by the sheer number of gaming culture personalities defending this situation, and I very much wonder if the reaction would have been the same if, say, it was a fundamentalist group petitioning to have Dragon Age: Inquisition pulled from shelves because all the homosexual relationships were "offensive".

 

[josemlopes]

why dont we let the market decide if the game is bad or not?

Isnt that what people wanted Steam to do because they couldnt find themselfs by watching reviews and videos online on some mystery box called a computer?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

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.

Uh, yes it does. The R18+ rating is functionally the same thing as AO. The only rating above that is X18+, reserved pretty much for pornography (itself only legal to sell in the ACT and Northern Territory) and limited to adult shops and internet ordering. Once the OFLC pass it with R18+, it's sale to minors becomes a criminal offence.

The list of classifications (excluding some sub-catagories for magazines, again largely porn) are here.

http://www.classification.gov.au/Industry/Documents/4893_Classification_legend_black LG.pdf

And a rough explanation of each is here.

http://www.classification.gov.au/Guidelines/Pages/Guidelines.aspx

 

[mecegirl]

Censorship, as defined by the ACLU:

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.

While you can argue that that's not what happened here, I would consider it a technicality at best. Yes, it is of course incredibly hyperbolic to compare it to Nazi germany, but that doesn't make it A-OK.

What worries me more than this particular incident is the precedent it sets, and the slippery slope it represents. That ball is already rolling, first with a similar store chain in New Zealand pulling all R18+ material from their shelves, and, last I heard, with the Norwegian Women's Front (claiming to speak for all women no less) publically petitioning for the game to be banned from all stores in Norway, spouting the same fabrications and unsupported claims of real-life consequencs as the original petition did.

Frankly, although I absolutely concede to the fact that Target were (of course) well within their rights to do what they did, I'm surprised by the sheer number of gaming culture personalities defending this situation, and I very much wonder if the reaction would have been the same if, say, it was a fundamentalist group petitioning to have Dragon Age: Inquisition pulled from shelves because all the homosexual relationships were "offensive".

You and others are so behind the times on this it isn't funny. Australia is actually kinda infamous for banning games because its classification system is really strict. Not just one or two stores deciding not to stock a game, but banning and even altering the content of games. Any negative precedent has long since been set. So this is nothing, this is a store making the choice to sell whatever it wants to sell.
It kinda makes me feel old for remembering the internet arguments over it when games like GTA 3 was banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia#Video_games

The Grand Theft Auto series has caused controversy in Australia. In 2002, Grand Theft Auto III was withdrawn from sale for allowing players to have sexual intercourse with virtual prostitutes; the game was later reinstated when this action was removed. Specifically, the player could solicit intercourse from a virtual prostitute, and then kill her. The ability to solicit sex from prostitutes in the game was the action that was removed, but the player could still violently murder them. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was also pre-censored for the same reasons. Though, in 2010 Vice City was classified uncut again receiving a MA15+.[29]

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was withdrawn from sale in July 2005 following the revelation that interactive sex scenes were included in the content files on the game's disc; one could not ordinarily access these scenes, but a third party modification, known as the Hot Coffee mod, allowed the player to access these scenes within the game itself, and the inclusion of the scenes on the game disc took the game outside the MA15+ category. The MA15+ rating was re-instated after a modified version was released worldwide by Rockstar Games, removing the content files for the sex scenes.

Grand Theft Auto IV has also prompted editing in the Australian (PAL) version, as Rockstar was worried it might get a RC rating. In the American release, sexual encounters with prostitutes occur inside the player's vehicle and the player has the ability to rotate the camera for a clearer view of what transpires. In the censored Australian version, the camera is fixed behind the vehicle, which rocks from side to side with accompanying audio effects. It is impossible for the player to view the inside of the car.[30] Rockstar later decided to rate the uncut version of the game which went on to receive a MA15+ and a patch was later released for the PS3 and Xbox 360 to uncensor the game.

In 2005, 50 Cent: Bulletproof was banned for encouraging gang violence (a version removing the game's Arcade Mode, cutting down on gore and with an automatic Game Over for killing innocents was given an MA15+ rating), while Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure was also banned for glorifying illegal graffiti tagging, and Reservoir Dogs was banned because the Australian government disliked the fact that the player was able to shoot the heads off of hostages during a bank heist. The highly violent and controversial Postal and its sequel, Postal², have also been banned in Australia for similar reasons.

On 4 July 2008, Fallout 3 was refused classification by the OFLC[31][32] due to the "realistic visual representations of drugs and their delivery method (bringing) the 'science-fiction' drugs in line with 'real-world' drugs."[33] A revised version of the game was resubmitted to the OFLC and reclassified as MA 15+ on 7 August 2008 after drug names were changed.[34] It was later clarrified that the only change done to the final version of the game was the name Morphine changed to Med-x. This change was done to all versions worldwide, thus Australia got the same version of the game as other countries uncut with a MA15+.

The lack of R18+ and X18+ ratings for games has been the subject of complaint in the gaming community, particularly on the basis that there is no reason why adults should not be able to see content in games that they would see in a film. One of the main opponents to the introduction of a R18+ rating for video games was the former South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson who has vetoed every attempt to induce one. Following his resignation after the 2010 South Australian elections there appears to be no likelihood of a future veto in the face of public opinion supporting the new classification.[35][36] Although recently Australian video game show Good Game announced that a meeting of the Attorneys-General in March 2008 resulted in a decision that the Australian public would be consulted before a final decision on the status of a R18+ rating for video games would be made.[37]

On 15 September 2009, Left 4 Dead 2. was refused classification by the OFLC[38][39] with the reason being "The game contains realistic, frenetic and unrelenting violence which is inflicted upon "the Infected" who are living humans infected with a rabies-like virus that causes them to act violently". The game was edited and released with an MA15+ classification two months later. This was due to the games creators and an online petition that began circulating shortly after the public became aware of the game being banned.

Around December 2009, the video game Alien vs Predator was refused classification due to graphic gore, with the developer refusing to modify the game.[40] However, the ban was later[when?] overturned by the Classification Review Board, with the Board giving it an MA15+ rating with the warning "strong science fiction violence".

On 11 August 2010, at a public forum Tony Abbott was asked a question about his views on the absence of an R18+ rating for video games and whether he has any policies relating to the subject. His reply was if the Coalition won the upcoming election he would be happy to examine the issue of an R18+ classification rating for video games. Although he admitted he did not know there had been a debate on the issue "If what happens with video games is not roughly analogous to what happens in other areas, that seems silly," he said. He added "Instinctively I'm with you, and it's something I'd be happy to look at, if we are in Government," finishing off with "If you think there is a problem, I would be happy to look at it."[41][42][43][44] However the Liberal/National coalition led by Abbott did not win government, the Australian Labor Party retaining power through a coalition with Green and Independent members.

As of December 2010, Attorney General Robert McClelland appears to be moving on this issue following the release of telephone poll results conducted by the Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O'Connor, showing roughly 80% in support of a R18+ classification.[45]

On 22 July 2011, at a meeting of State and Territories' Attorney-Generals, An agreement was reached by a vote of 7?0 with NSW abstaining from voting for the introduction of an R18+ classification. It is planned to introduce it towards the end of 2011.[46]

An R18+ rating for video games was introduced on 1 January 2013.

In June 2013, Saints Row IV and State of Decay became the first video games to be refused classification since the introduction of an R18+ adults only rating, Saints Row IV for "interactive depictions of sexual violence" (one of the weapons in the game is an anal probe) and depicting illegal drugs as a power-up, and State of Decay for depicting drugs as a power-up.

 

[SNCommand]

Target AU is free to do what they want with their product, but it's fairly dumb to listen to a petition that lies and makes fairly huge assumptions based on bad evidence

People would think Target AU was pretty dumb if they pulled 50 Shades of Grey off the shelves because some asshat online petition claimed the book advocates for violence against men

Also about the point of censorship, it technically is, people might hold the belief it's simply when the government bans something, but just having concerned moralists getting media pulled is still considered censorship, the definition of the word makes no statement that it has to be government censorship, it simply states it's a practice, and wikipedia details how private organizations and individuals might engage in censorship

Another point as well, people might just consider it prohibition when it is the government that bans the sale of alcohol, but I'm fairly certain people would consider it the same deal if puritans got stores to stop selling alcohol

 

[Arean]

Censorship, as defined by the ACLU:

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.

While you can argue that that's not what happened here, I would consider it a technicality at best. Yes, it is of course incredibly hyperbolic to compare it to Nazi germany, but that doesn't make it A-OK.

What worries me more than this particular incident is the precedent it sets, and the slippery slope it represents. That ball is already rolling, first with a similar store chain in New Zealand pulling all R18+ material from their shelves, and, last I heard, with the Norwegian Women's Front (claiming to speak for all women no less) publically petitioning for the game to be banned from all stores in Norway, spouting the same fabrications and unsupported claims of real-life consequencs as the original petition did.

Frankly, although I absolutely concede to the fact that Target were (of course) well within their rights to do what they did, I'm surprised by the sheer number of gaming culture personalities defending this situation, and I very much wonder if the reaction would have been the same if, say, it was a fundamentalist group petitioning to have Dragon Age: Inquisition pulled from shelves because all the homosexual relationships were "offensive".

You and others are so behind the times on this it isn't funny. Australia is actually kinda infamous for banning games because its classification system is really strict. Not just one or two stores deciding not to stock a game, but banning and even altering the content of games. So this is nothing, this is a store making the choice to sell whatever it wants to sell.
It kinda makes me feel old for remembering the internet arguments over it when games like GTA 3 was banned.

I'm well aware of the Australian governments long and tried history of being a censoring nanny-state, but what's your argument exactly? It was worse in the past, so anything less than that is ok? Let me reiterate that I'm arguing the principle more than this specific situation.

While I have no first hand experience, being from the literal opposite side of the world, it was impression that Australia was finally coming around on the Gaming front? A relatively recent addition of an R18+ Rating for games, after a recent push from the Australian gaming community, was a huge step forward iirc.

 

[Requia]

Out of interest, which part of the "gamers are dead" articles would you consider to be 'lies'?

The association with the death threats of Anita Sarkeesian. There was nothing in the threats to suggest this, and we know that no investigation of any kind was carried out prior to doing it because no reporters called the local police. When investigation *was* done in response to this being uncovered it turned out the death threats had started in March.

 

[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.

You got hard evidence to back that up? Because I seriously doubt it. You can make pretty much any crazy claim about someone and it means jack if you can't prove it. That'd be like me saying that you would stand behind this if people pulled a game from a shelf for having a homosexual main character. It means nothing because I can't prove it.

And neither can you.

Perhaps I was a tad sensational but my statement has a strong basis in reality.

Do you honestly think people would be so quick to defend this shit if Walmart or Game decided to stop stocking TLOU due to pressure from an anti-gay petition because Ellie kissed a girl and it's corrupting our youth!

No way, people would be PISSED and rightfully so.

Hell, we've been on that rodeo before with Mass Effect and the sex scenes only this time the media are standing with the morality police because they adopted a new name that makes them look better.

And to clarify, my issue is with the censorious nature of the petitioners more than with target, don't blame the tools, blame the people holding them.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

If it had a strong basis in reality, you would be able to get me hard facts.

That's the thing about living in a country with freedom of speech. People are allowed to do and say things, even when we don't want them to. If Wallmart were to do it, I would be upset, but I wouldn't accuse them of censorship, because it isn't. I'd just go and buy the game elsewhere (Because I've been to Wallmart, the game section takes up 1% of the store if necessary) but then again I don't shop at Wallamrt anyway for moral reasons. Frankly there are already a hundred things wrong with Wallmart. I'd probably sign a petition or two, but I'd make sure it wasn't as equally ignorant as the petition that got it pulled in the first place, so if there was anything about "Ignorant Christians" on the petition then it could fuck right off.

Not really. I think they're just as stupid, I think most people think that way. It's just like Anita in that people are overreacting. People are saying that this is going to set a precedent, that it'll set gaming back 20 years. No it won't. It sucks but in reality it's a minor thing that everyone, including the people who fought for it, will forget in a month or two. This is not as big as everyone makes it out to be.

 

[Trooper924]

It was mentioned before, but Jim did cover this in this week's jimquisition. [http://www.thejimquisition.com/2014/12/the-jimquisition-grand-theft-australia/]

And Jim has also reported that people on youtube have been taking him to task for not one hundred percent agreeing with them, including one guy who said that everyone should boycott Jim's patreon account until he changes his mind.

 

[Tankistas]

Am I understanding it right? Target AU makes a PR move to remove GTA5 from store shelves due to a misleading petition. Grey says that the act in itself is bullshit, however proceeds to pick the most hyperbolic criticism leveled "It is just like the nazis" to dismiss all of the people upset about this as idiots overreacting about something irrelevant. Way to go for the low hanging fruit.

Target's move fits numerous definitions of the word censorship (sadly, the ammount of definitions is way too numerous). I hear repeated that it is not censorship if it is not the government enforcing it. This need not be true - in the past various busybodies would campaign against bookstores and libraries to pull certain books and that was considered censorship. Various right wing religious organizations were previously known to pull very similar stunts as the organizers of this petition. Nobody had much sympathy for them and had few qualms about calling it censorship.

Regardless, I agree that Target pulling GTA from shelves will do no damage to Rockstar. Many stores do not stock many things so the world will go on.

What does matter is that this was done due to a petition with demonstrably false claims. A petition that explicitly asserts that GTA5 has some kind of power to make men (adults no less) into raging woman haters/rapists. This concession by Target gives undeserved credibility to such claims. THIS is why people are incensed. And some outlets in our illustrious gaming press instead of contesting such views are busy justifying Target or bickering over what is and is not censorship.

And as for the proposition "here, care about this instead - retailers don't sell AO games - get incensed!": These retailers have declared a brand strategy of being family stores so as a matter of principle they will not stock adult content. They declared that policy long ago and make no statements on the moral character of gamers. Furthermore, if even fake moral outrage is enough to pull a game, there is no way a "magical tentacle schoolgirl adventure" game will ever be on a Walmart shelf.

Say what you want about the ESRB, but at least it is predictable - once a rating has been given, the publisher knows where they can sell it. If need be adjustments can be made. Sadly, the moral outrage machete gang is less predicable - they can go on campaign over issues both real and imaginary. Tell me, what would cause more self-censorship for developers who wish to err on the side of caution - a formulaic age rating, or arbitrary outrage culture?

 

[mecegirl]

I'm well aware of the Australian governments long and tried history of being a censoring nanny-state, but what's your argument exactly? It was worse in the past, so anything less than that is ok? Let me reiterate that I'm arguing the principle more than this specific situation.

While I have no first hand experience, being from the literal opposite side of the world, it was impression that Australia was finally coming around on the Gaming front? A relatively recent addition of an R18+ Rating for games, after a recent push from the Australian gaming community, was a huge step forward iirc.

No, that it was worse than this so talking about this as if its a sign of anything worse is unnecessary. Australia is not going to go back to the way that it was. This is nothing more than an isolated incident, one that could only happen with a store like Target. If the petition had reached out to, and succeed to, persuade a company like EBgames then I could see the concern. As is, while its sweet of Americans and the rest to care, this move by Target doesn't even negatively effect Australian gamers.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

that doesn't make it any less morally wrong.

What is morally wrong about it?

I was pulled because a bunch of soccer moms found it morally offensive.

 

[Schadrach]

(Though...seems odd that this is international news.)

Not so strange given that when the story broke it was being pulled from certain stores in Australia and New Zealand, and now there's a "women's" group trying to have it banned in Norway, and a petition to have it pulled from stores in Canada.

Apparently *someone* is smelling chum in the water...

Also, this:

Spoiler: Big Image

So it's not like the people pushing the original petition are limiting their attacks on it being available to just the two chains.

 

[Kardsymalone]

snip

Snip

snip

Ay ya after a hard days work I didn't realize I'd need to give an englsih lesson. Since neither of you explained how it somehow fit your argument or how I'm wrong I'm just going to address what I think you mean.

Firstly just because they didn't stop it from being published doesn't mean it isn't censorship any form of suppression is censorship by the definition.
Suppression:to do away with by or as by authority; abolish; stop (a practice, custom, etc.) in the example of GTA they stopped the practice of selling the product, ergo suppression.
Official: a person appointed or elected to an office or charged with certain duties. This official would be the floor manager or whatever they call the person who chooses what to stack the shelves witch is their job. This official suppressed the sale of the game on behalf of the company for the belief of it being immoral or detrimental to society aka censorship.

Oh yeah also the obscenity laws

"Erotic material" ? Determination by court ? Labeling ? Penalties.


(a) If the subject material is written or printed, or is a sound recording, the court shall issue an order requiring that an "adults only" label be placed on the publication or sound recording, if such publication or sound recording is going to continue to be distributed. Whenever the superior court orders a publication or sound recording to have an "adults only" label placed thereon, such label shall be impressed on the front cover of all copies of such erotic publication or sound recording sold or otherwise distributed in the state of Washington. Such labels shall be in forty-eight point bold face type located in a conspicuous place on the front cover of the publication or sound recording. All dealers and distributors are hereby prohibited from displaying erotic publications or sound recordings in their store windows, on outside newsstands on public thoroughfares, or in any other manner so as to make an erotic publication or the contents of an erotic sound recording readily accessible to minors.

Basically unless Target has a back room they can't openly sell pornographic marital where it is accessible to minors