By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Kotaku Australia: Target's Grand Theft Auto V Ban Leaves Us With No-One To Blame

Ruler on 04 December 2014

just stop buying from target and dont support this company its that simple



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread

Around the Network
cfin2987@gmail.com on 04 December 2014
DonFerrari said:
cfin2987@gmail.com said:
Ka-pi96 said:
cfin2987@gmail.com said:

It's a free market. A store can sell or not sell what they like. Seriously people, get over it. Babies or us don't sell it either because their customers wouldn't agree. It's pure business sense.

Yeah, they can sell or not sell whatever they want. But people can certainly be upset about them refusing to sell something for such a pathetic reason.


Indeed they can, but there is a different between expression and force. Some people would have them bend over and do what they are told to do. The best worlds are the ones where people and companies have freedom of expression, as long as it's not at the expense of someone elses.

 

Taking away Targets right to choose would be wrong. By them doing this, they have harmed no one. The other expression, however, is stating that target should be controlled. That is wrong.


You know the petition have done exactly what you are saying is wrong, you know? People aren't demanding a store to sell what they want, but the petitioners to try to censor a game.

Yes. It seems that I am so impartial that I am confusing you. It's a fucking travesty, ok? People need to live and let live and stop butting their fucking nose into everything. They didn't need to make a fuss, and then when the game was pulled, the people that want it forced back onto the shelves are just as bad. Humans would fight over anything, like holy shit!! Think about it.



generic-user-1 on 04 December 2014
StuOhQ said:
Makes sense. If I had 40k individuals from my core demographic asking me to remove a certain toothpaste or hairbrush from my store (for whatever reason), I would simply stock different products and continue on with life.

Also, if a person really thinks it's the "feminist agenda" at work when it's suggested that portrayals of women in video games are problematic then there's clearly some preexisting bias that they need to work through.

As an artist, I fully support freedom of expression in art and entertainment. As an artist, I also encourage and support critical thinking about the message, tone, and implications of art and entertainment distributed to the masses.

Do I support Take Two's right to publish titles in the GTA franchise? Yes. Did I have fun with those titles as an adolescent? Yes. Would I like to see the GTA games slowly mature with the rest of society? Yes. Simple as that.

hm core demographic...  you mean we should write more letters to big companys that we dont like em to buy ads on kotaku because they are sexist idiots? thats a good idea, just call the target.



DonFerrari on 04 December 2014
ZTxGhost said:

"Put aside the fact that the video game allows players to be violent — in equal measure — to both men and women. Place that aside for a second. That’s a given. Female characters in Grand Theft Auto are poorly drawn; they’re either ‘prostitutes’ or wailing, nagging buffoons."

This is so dumb I don't even know where to start.

First off, you can't just say "Let's ignore this particular counter argument." No, sorry, debate doesn't work like that.
Secondly, the group that wanted GTA V removed from stores specifically mentioned the game's depiction of violence against women as what they're upset about. Bringing up the roles that female GTA characters generally assume is completely worthless in this debate because the group did not mention it. At all. The group specifically pointed to the violence as the source of the problem. So I'm not just going to set aside the fact that you can be just as violent to male characters as female characters, since its all kinds of relevant.

I'd be happy to discuss women's roles in GTA, but that's not what this particular debate is about.

Like the general role of man like thugs and the like is pleasant torwards men right?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 04 December 2014
cfin2987@gmail.com said:
DonFerrari said


Indeed they can, but there is a different between expression and force. Some people would have them bend over and do what they are told to do. The best worlds are the ones where people and companies have freedom of expression, as long as it's not at the expense of someone elses.

 

Taking away Targets right to choose would be wrong. By them doing this, they have harmed no one. The other expression, however, is stating that target should be controlled. That is wrong.


You know the petition have done exactly what you are saying is wrong, you know? People aren't demanding a store to sell what they want, but the petitioners to try to censor a game.

Yes. It seems that I am so impartial that I am confusing you. It's a fucking travesty, ok? People need to live and let live and stop butting their fucking nose into everything. They didn't need to make a fuss, and then when the game was pulled, the people that want it forced back onto the shelves are just as bad. Humans would fight over anything, like holy shit!! Think about it.

Good thing you were so clear, but not. You Just got lost in your argument. A side pushing for censorship and the other are equally as bad? Ok then. If they were forcing babies 'r us to sell porn I would agree with you. But "forcing" a company to not bend over a ridiculously claim isn't a bad thing at all.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
cfin2987@gmail.com on 04 December 2014
DonFerrari said:
cfin2987@gmail.com said:
DonFerrari said


Indeed they can, but there is a different between expression and force. Some people would have them bend over and do what they are told to do. The best worlds are the ones where people and companies have freedom of expression, as long as it's not at the expense of someone elses.

 

Taking away Targets right to choose would be wrong. By them doing this, they have harmed no one. The other expression, however, is stating that target should be controlled. That is wrong.


You know the petition have done exactly what you are saying is wrong, you know? People aren't demanding a store to sell what they want, but the petitioners to try to censor a game.

Yes. It seems that I am so impartial that I am confusing you. It's a fucking travesty, ok? People need to live and let live and stop butting their fucking nose into everything. They didn't need to make a fuss, and then when the game was pulled, the people that want it forced back onto the shelves are just as bad. Humans would fight over anything, like holy shit!! Think about it.

Good thing you were so clear, but not. You Just got lost in your argument. A side pushing for censorship and the other are equally as bad? Ok then. If they were forcing babies 'r us to sell porn I would agree with you. But "forcing" a company to not bend over a ridiculously claim isn't a bad thing at all.

No. Let me say that again NO. Don't put words in my mouth. I refused to take sides and everything I said related to everyone involved. I was never arguing and just making statements. You became confused because I wasn't taking sides. We don't all needlessly take one side of an argument you know? We're not all fan boys and girls.



DonFerrari on 04 December 2014
cfin2987@gmail.com said:
DonFerrari said:
cfin2987@gmail.com said:

Yes. It seems that I am so impartial that I am confusing you. It's a fucking travesty, ok? People need to live and let live and stop butting their fucking nose into everything. They didn't need to make a fuss, and then when the game was pulled, the people that want it forced back onto the shelves are just as bad. Humans would fight over anything, like holy shit!! Think about it.

Good thing you were so clear, but not. You Just got lost in your argument. A side pushing for censorship and the other are equally as bad? Ok then. If they were forcing babies 'r us to sell porn I would agree with you. But "forcing" a company to not bend over a ridiculously claim isn't a bad thing at all.

No. Let me say that again NO. Don't put words in my mouth. I refused to take sides and everything I said related to everyone involved. I was never arguing and just making statements. You became confused because I wasn't taking sides. We don't all needlessly take one side of an argument you know? We're not all fan boys and girls.

It really don't looks like that. Anyway what do you mean by fanboys and fangirls and what does it have to do with the thread?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."