Target Aus Pulls GTA V From Shelves, For Its "Violence Against Women" - Update

SUPA FRANKY

New member
Aug 18, 2009
1,889
0
0
Who buys their games at Target?

And hasn't the game been out for like 2 years now? I know there is an enhanced edition that was just released but still. Seems kidna late to only now just be offended by it.

I don't see why people who are offended by a game just can't play it, but I guess we can't have other people enjoying things.

Hard to care either way. Just buy it from Wal-Mart, Gamestop, Steam, Greenman-Gaming, and other of the many retailers.
 

Brian Tams

New member
Sep 3, 2012
919
0
0
You can also kill Whales in GTA V now, too. I'm still waiting for PETA to get all up in arms over it, like they did with Black Flag.

Yet, nothing. PETA has (so far) been more reasonable than these people.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
Steven Bogos said:
So there you have it. Violence against women in R-rated movies = okay! Violence against women in R-rated video games = won't someone please think of the children!
You think that's absurd? So you killing men is totally acceptable? But no, by gosh it's a girl.
 

CpT_x_Killsteal

Elite Member
Jun 21, 2012
1,519
0
41
ZiggyE said:
Here is the initial petition that sparked this.

https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women
Half the signatures on the thing are ridiculing the petition. Hell, mine's on there somewhere as well taking the piss out of it. The reasons stated in the petition are flat-out wrong and idiotic. I hope to hell people Target/K-Mart didn't just look at the number of signatories.
 

JayRPG

New member
Oct 25, 2012
585
0
0
R.K. Meades said:
"...the decision to stop selling GTA5 is in line with the majority view of our customers." Somehow, I doubt that. Do Kmart and Target have much market-share anyway? (in the context of video-games)
No, they barely scratch the surface of market share for video gaming in Australia.

Specialist games retailer EB Games, and Electronics store JB HiFi have the largest market share for gaming, and the most power in the industry in Australia.

JB HiFi had enough power a few years ago to demand reasonable RRPs for Australians (hence now we get new releases for $59, $69, and $79 instead of the old $99-$119), though that could also be construed as blackmail because they started importing large quantities of games to sell to Aussies at much lower prices. I believe negotiations went something like this: "Drop your wholesale prices for us or we'll just import all our stock".

Target, Kmart, and Big W are predominantly department stores with a very small gaming section, they mainly keep a few new releases and kids stuff.

EB games is a specialty games store (owned by Gamestop), and JB HiFi is one of Australia's largest electronics stores, and the only other retailer that does trade-ins for video games, with a dedicated games department.
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
This is a particularly good counter-petition going around at the moment :)

https://www.change.org/p/target-to-change-their-violent-name-and-aggressive-logo
 

Revnak_v1legacy

Fixed by "Monday"
Mar 28, 2010
1,979
0
0
Zontar said:
Revnak said:
So the media you consume does not in any way effect you? Because I seriously doubt that. And there have been studies saying otherwise too. I remember those as well. The way that media effects us is quite complicated. However, the issue is that whatever effect GTA is having, it is probably bad, since the game certainly is not trying to reinforce any positive human actions.

And if you want to just blame these strange censoring types, go ahead, but I sure hope you stick to that.
Media does effect us, but not in the way those calling for censorship claim. No study supports the claim that media will make one either violent or sexist. None which has survived peer review anyway.
Pretty certain that most people say it reinforces or pushes you towards such views, not that it generates them out of thin air.
Yeah, I'm so happy to hear you are apathetic about the shittyness of games and "games culture." Hearing you say that after saying I'm not one of the people you are against leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because apathy towards the massive issues going on in the medium I love is something I take issue with.
I said I'm apathetic towards you, not the issue your talking about. Don't try to conflate the two. I'm all for the discussion of issues in games and gaming culture, hell I'm all for the discussion of new ideas and throwing them into the fireplace of criticism and discussion. The problem is that those claiming to be trying to push the discussion forward simply speak and rarely let their ideas be put under even basic scrutiny and dismiss it as harassment or misogyny out of hand. When someone says they want to talk about women in gaming, it's rare that I see then say anything other then generic talking points, not give any new ideas of their own, and not say anything about how to fix the perceived issues other then making less of what they don't like. And those are typically the good ones, the worst ones simply stated things they hate and that people who like them are terrible people.
I am trying to make a game? Does that help? Because, from what I've seen, most people tend not to think that. Female developers who actually go ahead and make games still get told that their opinions and efforts are worthless, and that they should just shut up, even when they are creating and coming up with solutions.

Often the "criticism" they are calling out actually is misogyny, as the hundreds of video "takedowns" of Anita serve as excellent examples of. Much of it is far more flawed than the work it is trying to tear a new one. And given that may of these people have responded to criticism, when it actually amounts to such, I really don't buy what you're saying here.

And sometimes people just bust out the same talking points because they're still true. Harassment in online games is a problem. Video Game communities are extremely exclusionary towards women and sexual minorities. Dead or Alive has awful, awful character designs.

With most of these people, there is no discussion, only they talk and we listen. It's why we don't respect them, they'e done nothing to earn it and everything to lose it. They talk about getting women into gaming, while we are insulted as misogynists while we actually act to make gaming and game development accessible to them. It's disgusting.
Ignoring that they themselves have entered into gaming despite all the hurdles they had to jump and have made efforts to be accepting and open towards other outsiders. But no, your kind are the true heroes.

Well, a lot of the time it isn't censorship. You really aren't entitled to a platform. Nobody has to listen to you on Twitter or YouTube. Nobody has to debate you or let you talk about shit they disagree with on their site. That isn't censorship. And I don't care about claims of hypocrisy. They are almost always based on the worst interpretation of what somebody said and amount to little more than an evasion of a person's current arguments. A waste of time really.
Actually you ARE entitled to a platform, the platform is your ability to speak. You're right about no one having to listen to you on Twitter or YouTube, but that is not even part of the discussion. Censorship is, in modern parlance, the attempt to stop someone from being capable of having their voice thrown out into the court of ideas. On the internet that means having people capable of voicing their thoughts.
You are not entitled to a platform means that nobody has to give you one. I thought that was obvious.

In the literal sense an ISP preventing someone from ever commenting on anything on the internet isn't censorship, but in action it is. Having forums remove such voices because they don't like it is within their right, but if it is simply for the message and not the means by which said message is delivered then it reflects poorly on the site because it means those who run it are not willing to allow decent in opinion. (though there are cases where it actually IS illegal, such as false DMCA claims)
A forum dedicated to rape survivors does not need to humor somebody trying to say that drunk rape isn't real. Sorry, that isn't censorship, that's removing the shit from your community. If it creates some hugbox or whatever you feel like calling it, fine, but people don't have to let you into their circle, people can kick you out, and that isn't censorship. If some "burn all fags" type tried to insert themself into my circle of friends, I would go out of my way to get everybody to reject them, even if they were polite about it. A forum is just a big community, and (contextually) it has every right to kick people out for their opinions.

There are rules I live by when it comes to interacting with people, one of the top ones is that anyone unwilling to debate their beliefs is worthy of neither praise nor respect. If a YouTube channel closes it's comments, then the opinions of the poster are not worth discussion.
I can agree with the first, I have no patience for moral or intellectual cowardice, one must stand by their beliefs and one must believe in something. But they don't have to debate with you. They don't have to answer every question ever posed to them. They don't have to deal with shit. One should argue, but not with everyone. One should face questioning, but not all questioning. There is a limit to what a person should reasonably have to tolerate.

Ah, YouTube comments, the last bastion of true intellectual discussion. I have no doubt that if I had a YouTube I would shut down comments the first time I saw any shit pop up. It just isn't worth it. And I bet most people understand that. The only reason people started getting pissed about all these YouTube comments getting shut down in the first place is that it meant they didn't have a place where they could ***** and moan about bullshit anymore. Oh sure, I doubt that was the motivation for most, but that's what started it, and the rest just bought the piss poor arguments of the bitchers and moaners hook, line, and sinker. YouTube comments aren't worth the electricity necessary to generate them. I wish every channel locked their comments. The world would be a better place then.
 

ron1n

New member
Jan 28, 2013
401
0
0
Revolutionary said:
Most people get it from EB games or JB hifi.
Don't understand why anyone ever buys games from brick retailers here. Such a waste of money when there are so many better online alternatives.

Want a hardcopy? cool, buy it from Ozgameshop or Dungeon Crawl. Otherwise go digital.

ZERO reason to buy anything from JB, Kmart, Target, EB or Dick Smith unless they are hosting one of those rare big discounts for a new game release.

Can ban whatever they like for all I care, I'll only start giving a shit when they pull a game from an actual seller of note.
 

Fireprufe15

New member
Nov 10, 2011
177
0
0
Creator002 said:
vonSanneck said:
Here's a nice idea: buy GTA V for 8th gen digitally.
It's $109.95 digitally. At EB it's $99.95. At Target, it was less than $80.
Ya gotta VPN that shit up man. Games are really that expensive in Australia? Never pay that much money for games.
 

Razorback0z

New member
Feb 10, 2009
363
0
0
You have to laugh at, maybe even pity the stupidity of the so called "activists". Target milks 98% of the expected revenue from the sales of GTA V then has a little bet on the side by stopping sales when it no longer matters. The result, people campaigning for nothing think they had a win.

Meanwhile forced sterilisation of women in India continues. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/britain-end-support-forced-sterilisation-india-chhattisgarh

A genuine case of horrific violence against women in the real world and you don't hear these bleeding hearts saying boo, fart or bob down and kiss my ass about it.

Stupid people, campaigning over stupid things, promoted by a stupid media broadcasting to the stupid. Why focus on real world violence when you can worry about pixels being harmed, I love modern life I really do, its constant entertainment watching you insects fuss about.
 

ron1n

New member
Jan 28, 2013
401
0
0
Fireprufe15 said:
Creator002 said:
vonSanneck said:
Here's a nice idea: buy GTA V for 8th gen digitally.
It's $109.95 digitally. At EB it's $99.95. At Target, it was less than $80.
Ya gotta VPN that shit up man. Games are really that expensive in Australia? Never pay that much money for games.
$73 at Ozgameshop and as low as $50-$60 on Ebay for hard copies.

Seriously isn't rocket science, people are just lazy and prefer to complain instead of shop around.
 

reciprocal

New member
Jun 4, 2009
77
0
0
Zhukov said:
It still amuses me to see Gamergaters getting pissed off by this.

"We use letter writing campaigns to influence the actions of news outlets hardly any of us frequented but which offended us with their sensibilities?"
"Whoo, yeah! Consumer power baby! I am Gamer, hear me type!"

"A bunch of busybody think-of-the-children types used a letter writing campaign to influence the actions of a business stocking a product hardly any of them were going to buy but which offended their sensibilities?"
"WHOA! Whoa. Can of worms, man! Dangerous precedent right there! Why, it's practically censorship! Domestic terrorism even!"
I am in favour of Gamergate but I do agree that Kmart and Target have every right to pull GTAV from their shelves. Gamers aren't their primary customers and they should be influenced by the concerns of their primary customers. I also agree that this isn't censorship. If it was the government, then yes.

However, I do challenge the premise for the petition. Statistics from all developed countries have shown that crimes have decreased since the first GTA was created, number of women in university has exceeded men and the gender pay gap has decreased. At the very least there's an absence of evidence.

Any Australian knows they can import the game for cheaper anyway or just go to EB Games, JB Hifi or Dick Smith.
 

Doom972

New member
Dec 25, 2008
2,312
0
0
totheendofsin said:
https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=191536&alert_id=KLNsvVtEZm_2TAy7BLyrLkl4FVen4Dx6jdEOfc5jWmiunbPseoBVpQ%3D

Here's what I keep seeing as held up as what led to this decision (whether or not it actually played a part in this I don't know), keep in mind it misrepresents the game to a laughable degree
So it's based on someone's screenshot? Not even a cutscene? I could make a screenshot like that almost every open-world game. Imagine if someone showed them a screenshot like that of Skyrim.
 

rofltehcat

New member
Jul 24, 2009
635
0
0
The original petition employed misinformation and was in general heavily influenced by intolerant ideologies. It is quite concerning that gaming media outlets like Kotaku and even game developer website Gamasutra seem to now present arguments in support of this ban.

Gamasutra said:
The depiction of violence against women in games has come under greater public scrutiny in recent years, thanks in part to critical works like Anita Sarkeesian's series of videos examining Tropes vs. Women in Video Games.
Some of her criticism is certainly good and, after all, which medium shouldn't have its critics? But Focusing too much on one issue, carefully picking examples and ignoring many counter-arguments ties directly into what the petition was founded on.


Doom972 said:
So it's based on someone's screenshot? Not even a cutscene? I could make a screenshot like that almost every open-world game. Imagine if someone showed them a screenshot like that of Skyrim.
This is exactly what I mean: Critics of video games as an active medium should not blame stuff that they did of their own volition on games that normally punish you for such heinous acts. Examples are: Sarkeesian killing strippers in Hitman Absolution that are meant to be simply snuck by. The game punishes you with a reduced score, yet she made it look like this was the actual goal of the game. Similarly, in the example of this very petition, equal measures abusing the player's free agency and very careful fabrication (and selection) of "evidence" were undertaken. Making it look like the violence depicted only matters when used against women (or can only be used against women) and that you are not punished for it (cops probably there soon) is misinformation.

People should be enabled to make informed purchase decisions, not misinformed to stop the distribution of something that some may dislike.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Meh, Australia has bigger issues that involve actual censorship for me to be too concerned that Kmart and Target are pulling GTA5.

Though I have had quite a good laugh at the comments section of the petition.



But let's be honest for a second... wait... where is it? Ah! there it is my tinfoil hat. We all know the petition was founded by EB games in order to gain a monopoly on the sale of GTA5. We're all just sheep! SHEEP!
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Revnak said:
Pretty certain that most people say it reinforces or pushes you towards such views, not that it generates them out of thin air.
And even that assertion has no evidence supporting it in the form of peer reviewed studies.

I am trying to make a game? Does that help? Because, from what I've seen, most people tend not to think that. Female developers who actually go ahead and make games still get told that their opinions and efforts are worthless, and that they should just shut up, even when they are creating and coming up with solutions.
If that's the case from us (GamerGate) why are WE the ones spending hundreds of thousands on getting women into making the games they want to see made, while the same people claiming we need more women in the industry and for the industry to change attack the groups trying to make that change? If change is going to happen, it needs to be bottom up, and while we are trying to actually do that anti seems happy in trying to force a bottom down approach despite the fact it will never work.
Often the "criticism" they are calling out actually is misogyny, as the hundreds of video "takedowns" of Anita serve as excellent examples of. Much of it is far more flawed than the work it is trying to tear a new one. And given that may of these people have responded to criticism, when it actually amounts to such, I really don't buy what you're saying here.
Of all the people who have responded to her videos with videos of their own, the large majority tend to be simple deconstructions of arguments so poor most of the people who support her goals don't believe them. Name one critic of hers, no matter how logical or irrational, which she has responded to. Name one.

As for the misogyny, I'm going to have to withhold my benefit of the doubt. With that word having been rendered meaningless due to the almost turrets level misuse of it, it's on par with "privilege" for ending discussion.

And sometimes people just bust out the same talking points because they're still true. Harassment in online games is a problem. Video Game communities are extremely exclusionary towards women and sexual minorities. Dead or Alive has awful, awful character designs.
Everyone gets harassed online, it's a result of the nature of the internet. There's nothing special about that which women and "sexual minorities" receive other then the fact that the proportion of those who have skin that's too thin to handle it is apparently much higher with them.

Your comment about Dead or Alive is also a subjective one. I've never played the games, don't intent to, don't care for it. If it succeeds it succeeds, if it fails it fails, but I won't help it by buying it. It doesn't effect me and it doesn't effect anyone else. If everyone acted like that there's be a lot less complaining on the internet, but I find it unlikely that will ever happen.
You are not entitled to a platform means that nobody has to give you one. I thought that was obvious.
Given what the platforms we use today are, no, no it was not obvious.
A forum dedicated to rape survivors does not need to humor somebody trying to say that drunk rape isn't real. Sorry, that isn't censorship, that's removing the shit from your community. If it creates some hugbox or whatever you feel like calling it, fine, but people don't have to let you into their circle, people can kick you out, and that isn't censorship. If some "burn all fags" type tried to insert themself into my circle of friends, I would go out of my way to get everybody to reject them, even if they were polite about it. A forum is just a big community, and (contextually) it has every right to kick people out for their opinions.
Ah, Reductio ad absurdum, haven't seen that one in a while. Using your logic I could say we should kick out all people who want gaming to be changed from the gaming community. After all a large number of them are only interested in making fun of us basement dwelling nerd virgins. After all you said it yourself that a big community has every right to kick people out for their opinions.

I also fail to see how a site which is dedicated to helping rape victims would be a forum, or have a forum on it other then a simple QnA and lines of direct communication between victims and assistance. Forums are, by their very nature, places of discussion of ideas. It's why all (good) forums have an Off-Topic section, no matter how dedicated you are there's always going to talk unrelated to the issue at hand. The idea of a forum dedicated to rape survives is, in and of itself, an absurdity.

I can agree with the first, I have no patience for moral or intellectual cowardice, one must stand by their beliefs and one must believe in something. But they don't have to debate with you. They don't have to answer every question ever posed to them. They don't have to deal with shit. One should argue, but not with everyone. One should face questioning, but not all questioning. There is a limit to what a person should reasonably have to tolerate.
The problem with your premise is that is assumes that those making the argument ever respond at all to any criticism. As it stands, most (including nearly all of those in a prominent position) never have. People want us to treat people like Anita as academics, and even have the gull to call her one, yet she neither uses an academic format nor meets even the most liberal interpretation of what it takes to be one.

Ah, YouTube comments, the last bastion of true intellectual discussion. I have no doubt that if I had a YouTube I would shut down comments the first time I saw any shit pop up. It just isn't worth it. And I bet most people understand that. The only reason people started getting pissed about all these YouTube comments getting shut down in the first place is that it meant they didn't have a place where they could ***** and moan about bullshit anymore. Oh sure, I doubt that was the motivation for most, but that's what started it, and the rest just bought the piss poor arguments of the bitchers and moaners hook, line, and sinker. YouTube comments aren't worth the electricity necessary to generate them. I wish every channel locked their comments. The world would be a better place then.
Like all things 90% of YouTube comments are shit. That's not exclusive to YouTube comments, it's a rule which applies to all things. I've actually had some arguments in those comments that are on par with the intellectual debate I've had in my collage. They are rare, but they happen, and they usually happen in videos discussing an idea.

And say what you will about the comment section, if it's because the person doesn't want to respond to it, they simply should ignore it. From their perspective closing it and leaving it open but without interaction leads to the same result, only with the latter actually letting people discus the issue at hand in the place most appropriate. With the way YouTube's comments work, it's easy to sift threw the garbage to the relevant comments. Plus there's the tendency to remove the like/dislike bar (something Google really needs to remove, no one should be able to shut it off). All that indicates is how many people felt strongly enough to voice approval or disapproval in the most basic means possible.

I've noticed a trend in terms of those who consistently shut off their comment sections and disable the like bar, they tend to usually either be channels dedicated to a radical religious view (typically creationism or a litrealist interpretation of a holy text) or a radical political one (such as FF). Channel's like TB's tend to be the exception, not the rule (and he also keeps the like bar active).
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
I could understand refusing to sell it if women were the only NPC's in the game and a man was going around killing them. That I could understand refusing to sell. This is GTA V. It's violence against men, women, and even animals. Refusing to sell it is just plain stupid. It's an equal opportunity slaughterfest.
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
This reminds me of the Gamespot review, fuck all the guys you kill, fuck the main target of jokes being rednecks and hipsters, fuck the racism (that is basicly for everyone, even the main characters are target of jokes), no, you can kill women if you want since its rare to have it forced on the player as opposed to everything else, therefore the game is against women. My sogggy knee!!!

Revnak said:
And while I may not want to disallow these kinds of games, I certainly think the world would be better off without them, considering that GTA is nihilistic, poorly made, perpetuates terrible design philosophies, and revels in purposeless debauchery like an "edgy" middle schooler.
You may have to look in the mirror because the edge here is you.
 

InsanityRequiem

New member
Nov 9, 2009
700
0
0
Put this into the coffin for having better representation of women in games. If women can't be disposable NPCs like men are, then they can't be both the protagonist and antagonist in games either. Good job anti-GTA people! You've pushed the idea that games should depict men, and only men.

All games featuring women are games that are depict "violence against women" in a negative light. Therefore, any game featuring a woman should be removed.

This is a fictitious argument I do not subscribe to, but this is the message such an act Australia Kmart and Target have subscribed to. If your game features a woman, no matter the circumstance or role the woman plays, it is a game that depicts violence against women and must be removed from shelves.

Seriously, if I were to go and make video games, why would I make a game that has "equal representation" if this is how the game gets treated?