Target (Australia) drops GTA V due to depictions of violence against women

Is this any different than what's depicted in books, movies etc?
Censorship?

Your take on this?

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...e_to_depictions_of_violence_against_women.php



Happy Holidays

 

K Mart followed suite a few days later, too.

I wouldn't call it "censorship" at all. They aren't saying people shouldn't play those games. They're saying they don't want to sell them - which is entirely their choice. It's not aligned with their family-oriented branding or market position at all, and most enthusiast gamers wouldn't pick them to buy from in any case. While to gamers it's a huge deal because GTA is a huge and high profile title, to them it's really not that big a deal - it's just one product in one of their ranges in one of their smaller departments, where they're already not particularly competitively positioned.

They probably gained more from dropping it than they gained for picking it up in the first place, and it's honestly no skin off anyone's nose. Every Target I'm aware of is within a short walk of at least an EB Games (read: GameStop), in addition to a bunch of other retailers who stock both games and "mature" content.

 

Absolutely the retailer's choice, no arguments.

 

Retailer's depend on the opinion of their consumers.

This argument ignores the concept of brand recognition.

 

This one is a tough call. Consider:

In Grand Theft Auto, I can:

1. Pick up a hooker in my car
2. Pay her to give me a blowjob.
   
3. Kill her
4. Take my money back

Now, if I wanted to RAPE her, I would:

1. Pick up a hooker in my car
2. Point a gun at her head and THREATEN her to give me a blowjob.
   
3. Kill her
4. I wouldn't need to take my money back

The cases are technically different, but practically they are pretty close. GTA pushes a very fine line with its content. Then again, 33 million people bought it, so who am I to judge?

 

Are those really different at all? You are picking up a woman for sex with the intent of killing her. Neither is "better" than the other since you are still using and disposing of her. I don't think GTA is really walking a fine line at all, they are firmly on the dark side of the line.

That said, I am perfectly fine with a retailer refusing to carry anything for any reason, and am pleased that they are making a choice (regardless of which side they fall on). The important part is that they have that choice.

 

It depends on what you mean by dark. Yeah, murder is pretty damn dark. But certain things go beyond that, such as rape, genocide, things involving children etc. There's more than one line to cross; that's why the judge gives you life in prison for one crime, and the death penalty for another.

 

By dark, I mean intent. You play a variety of criminals, engaging in crime, torture, murder, etc. There isn't a exactly a an option to have bake sales and clean up parks instead of pulling out teeth with pliers. It's not a revenge story of the just, or a hero doing bad things for a good cause. You are correct, it could easily be "worse", no doubt. But on a simple spectrum of good, neutral and bad, it is clearly bad. It isn't ambiguous about that, nor does it try to be. I just don't see them on a fine line. They would really have to really amp it up to go "worse" (killing babies, raping children, kicking puppies, phishing schemes on the elderly, etc). And by contrast the other (good) line is pretty far away too.

Not disagreeing with you. It's just that I, personally, don't qualitatively distinguish the "evil" line, if that makes sense. Murder, rape, torture, and the other bad stuff is all "evil/bad" to me. All those things are on the "don't" side of the line. I don't think rape is worse than murder. For no other reason than that means I am (mentally) considering the inverse, that murder is better than rape.

On the other hand.... killing zombies... good. But what about raping zombies? There's a moral conundrum.

 

Every 5th out of 10 game is violating many things but why GTA 5 is being pointed? It's very popular because of it's uniqueness and it's the story of a gangster and that what they do. I won't be expecting any batter from a gangster.
Movies shows the same content but no body is pointing that. Rape, Body Torture, Language and many other things.
In my opinion it's fine to play for those 18+

 

No, it really doesn't.

 

No one buys games from Target anyway .

I don't really care..their choice..but I have to wonder, isn't violence against any gender bad? not just one?

 

Yes, it does. You simply assume Target's reputation won't be influenced by a move that causes high publicity.

Context is important. For instance, if you just went down the street shooting men and women randomly, the gender thing wouldn't be as big of a deal. But killing strippers and hookers is different because there is sex involved.

You also have to consider defensiveness. I'm speculating on this one because I haven't played the game enough yet, but if women are more defenseless than men in the game, on average, then it would be an asymmetric factor.

 

Funny for something high publicity I didn't hear about it till this thread. I really don't care though what Target does and I suspect most people don't because they've likely never heard about GTA unless they were gamers.

 

What happens to you is representative of most people?

 

Actually, they initially stocked it. THAT was their choice.
It was also their choice to market it as an item for children.

Their change of heart (after they already made their money) came from them being pressured, and for no other reason whatsoever.

 

I doubt they marketed it as a product for children.

 

Do they usually advertise their R rated products on fliers next to young childrens toys? Or do they only do something that stupid for video games?

As for the petition, it was full of blatant lies, it had no integrity and should have been completely ignored until those lies were removed, and only then should it have been considered.

 

Considering that a little under 49,000 signatures were in the petition, I would surmise they wanted to quench any potential for negative publicity. It being Australia might have had a bearing as well.

https://www.change.org/p/target-wit...yers-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women

 

Okay, let's ignore that "sex makes it different" and that you're bringing defensiveness when we're talking about civilians who most don't have guns of either gender because that isn't relevant.

It was no longer stocked because it depicted violence again women. Not violence against hookers or whatever. Women. There's violence against men, that's okay. Women though, that's a no no.


I haven't played the new GTA and probably won't ever so maybe there's something I'm missing, but I mean...I just don't see the difference.

 

Quoting the link Ryiah just posted:

 

Those cases aren't different at all. If you pay a woman for sex and then kill her, then you have essentially raped her. If you want to sell me a PS4 and I pay you for it, then kill you and take the PS4 and my money, then in addition to killing you, I have stolen your PS4. It's very clear in the first instance that there was no intention of ever paying for the sex. That's a violation of the contract and thus a sexual violation of the woman. You've turned her from an agent with free will making a mutual and voluntary exchange into a sex object.

I'm firmly in the sex positive camp of feminism (although I don't like the term feminism any more than any other group rights. I care about individual rights, when you do that the rest take care of themselves.), so any moral dilemma I have with the game would be based on the treatment of the sex workers, and not the presence of sex work itself. I can certainly see how some sex workers may be upset by their portrayal in the game. That being said, I can see how anyone can be upset by their portrayal in the game. You don't just kill sex workers, you kill cops, you kill pedestrians, you kill anyone you want.

Personally, I see the whole game as just fantasy. Whether it's the violence or the sex, a player isn't likely to do anything in real life that they wouldn't have done had they not played the game. There is far too much empirical evidence proving as much to claim otherwise.

Reason has a good article on sex positive vs sex negative feminism and their relation to GTAV here: http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/07/pixelated-prostitutes-feminist-debate-ov

Of course, any retailer is well within their rights to decide that any given product does not convey the standards that they have set forth for their company. As long as no countries are banning the game by rule of law, I have no problem with individual actors banning it on their shelves.

 

I haven't played this game, but... if I can kill anyone in the game I like, and I kill a sex worker, isn't that a moral failing on my part? Why blame the game? Unless the game is actively encouraging me with in game rewards, which is a different matter.

Suppose you make all sex workers/women invulnerable in the game, but leave all men killable. How is this not treating women with contempt? It seems to be reinforcing the stereotype that women are helpless.

 

The cases are a bit different, because in the first case she believed she would be OK when you were having sex with her, even though you actually killed her in the end.

But yeah, Rockstar is pushing a very fine line.

In a way they are different: if Rockstar actually did let you act out the second case in the game, governments would start to ban the game. But the first case slips through (mostly) unhindered. But hey, maybe we just live in a dark world.

 

Oh for sure, let me clarify that from the woman's perspective enduring one crime is better than enduring two. It was rather careless of me to discuss only the moral implications without also mentioning the perception of those actions by the woman. But ultimately, in both cases she is used as a sex object instead of an individual with agency and then killed. Her experience is better, but in both instances she has had her agency removed and is treated like a sex object.

 

And then we get into why the petition was full of misleading statements.

 

No, I don't. To the contrary, I'm assuming that it will, and also that it will be positive for them. I suggest reading the whole post to put the first few words that you quoted into context.

 

I bought my 3DS and Pokemon X from Target. Reason being: It was the cheapest I could find after days of shopping around.

Yes, it's hard to believe, but in Australia (well, Sydney at least) sometimes Target and even Kmart can be the cheapest shops around to buy games from. Other more popular options to buy games from such as EBGames (Their prices are an absolute joke and sometimes just a straight up F***-you to consumers) and JBHifi (used to be the cheapest around) aren't always the greatest in prices and stock levels.

Actually, Target was stupid enough to advertise GTA5 in their catalogue in the kids/toys section. Look at this:

 

Sadly, probably true. But I prefer to see it as there are dark people living in my happy fun world. Delusion is the true path to happiness.

Ha! That statement is exactly why I don't draw the distinction. If one is killing someone, does it really matter how they are treated them before you end their existence? Any justification of any action or behavior on the way to destroying a life makes me ill, there is no "better" version of murder, no silver lining to weaken the action.

Ouch! Marketing fail.

 

I agree that there's no "better" version of murder, but that's not really in question. Consider the atrocities individually. In all described scenarios someone gets murdered. In some described scenarios, that person is additionally tortured and/or raped. All of the scenarios are bad, but some are worse than others in that more atrocities are committed.

 

No, this is not censorship. You can make any game you want, but you cannot force retailers to sell the game for you. In this case, Target is applying a similar judgement that they do with movies. For example, you cannot buy hardcore pornography at Target. Nobody from Target is telling people they cannot make such things, but Target refuses to sell such things. Target has every right to decide what products should or should not be sold in their stores.

 

/agree

 

You can buy GTA 5 at Target in the US.
You can even buy Scarface.

 

There's Gamestop, Amazon and ebay. There is no reason to be upset if Walmart/Kmart doesn't want to sell it.
I'm sure walmart wouldn't sell 50 Shades of Grey either. lol

 

Target isn't Walmart.

 

So, Target Australia actually do sell 50 shades of grey

 

It's not the same thing. Let's have a dose of serious common sense. GTA V would still be a great game without all the sex and hookers stuff. I understand why it's there though:

1. You're a seedy criminal and it comes with the territory. Like it or not, that S*** happens.
2. It's brilliant for sales.

What I think should be done: much more control over who actually buys it. I mean, ultimately, GTA isn't going to change any healthy mind. But a developing mind (and minds still develop up to 30) - I think it requires a stiffer rating than just 18, if only to hammer home the point to the developers. If a developer knows that the age is 21, and it could mean less sales, then these are choices that affect both ends of the spectrum.

- moderately safer for kids - adults can view a 21 title as being something far more risky for a 16 year old.
- developers worry about loss of sales, and consider that it might well be worth toning some things down.
- diehards still get their fix of sickening violence.

 

The retailer has the right do as they wish, regardless of why they do it. Aren't we all for 'freedom' here?

Also, why is it every post that has "violence" or "women" in it always has someone who has defend why it isn't about "men". Geesh. Some folks have a big solid chip on their shoulder.

This is about a retailer getting pressure from their customers to do something and they do it. Free market..that is how it works. Buy it somewhere else.

 

Oh, Target, sorry.
I think Australia's rating system is more strict than the US's. Australia banned Manhunt back in 04, which was fine in the US
Also, no retailer in America will sell an AO game in the US, so by logic, no retailer will sell the Aussy version of AO there either.
It's bad for business.

 

We are asking why it matters what gender; not why it isn't about us. I don't care if a guy is being shot at in a game.

It's not really that big of a deal here in Australia anyway...we've had censorship of games for a while so we're used to a lot worse than a company simply banning a game(which isn't censorship whatsoever no matter how much people or groups will love to twist it..) and it doesn't matter if someone doesn't stock it since there's a bunch of other stores that do.

Anyway, Take-two president responded and said that they don't care because it won't make a dent in their sales whatsoever and that it's a slippery slope they're going down.

 

In many cases, I would agree with you. For example, if there were a game that specifically has you kill women for points, it would be wrong to point out that there are games where you specifically kill men for points. Because those aren't the game being discussed. It is quite possible for two different games to both be sexist, but that doesn't make it okay for either of them and it doesn't mean that neither one merits discussion or that if you discuss one you must discuss both. But in this specific game, you kill both men and women. The game treats the genders equally, doesn't it? I haven't played it so I don't know for sure.

I don't want to be mistaken for one of those men's rights activists, but in many cases both sides of the gender rights argument seem to cherry pick their arguments. This seems to be just such a case. If GTA V really does treat women differently than men, then that is a valid discussion. Are there no female characters that aren't sex workers? Do you get more points for killing a sex worker than for killing a policeman? Where is the discrimination? If it is there, by all means, it is worthy of discussion. But I don't think it's invalid for men to ask where it is.

 

You're right. It's not the same thing.
An 8 yr old can legally buy 50 shades of grey.

And you can play GTA and choose not kill prostitutes, but when you read 50 shades it's always going to shove a rape fantasy down your throat.

 

Is this the game you want that 8 year old to play?

 

I don't think he wants an 8 year old to play GTA V anymore than he wants an 8 year old to read 50 Shades of Grey. But it doesn't matter. Retailers are who gets to decide what is and is not appropriate for their stores. Parents are the ones who get to decide what is and is not appropriate for their kids. It needn't be any more complicated than that.

 

I don't think so... Their niche is being on that knife edge that is "the mainstream game with shocking, dark violence". I think that getting a special rating would just make an even bigger deal out of it. And if Target are already complacent enough to have put an R18+ game in what was apparently a kids section of their catalog that already implies to me that they flat out weren't paying attention - so it wouldn't really matter to them what the rating was.

By the way, R18+ stuff needs to go in its own special area over here. I'm surprised that advertising of said stuff was somehow overlooked not just at the catalog level, but also at the policy/legal level.

 

At least somebody has the balls to say, "Um... this is absolute S***. Why is this even a thing?"

And it's the Aussies.

 

Maybe because the prostitute just happens to be female? I don't like violent against men either...and that is the reason I don't play FPS games, where killing is the reason for the game. Does Target sell games that allow gratuitous violence against men or children? Honestly, I think an innocent unarmed person used as a target for murder in a game, especially this particular game, is enough to make some retailers take it off their shelves. Not sure what difference it makes overall though.

Funny..cause you rant about concern over violence regarding women and yet many of you play or are making games that are extremely violent, gender doesn't matter. I find that rather hypocritical. I am not going to sign any petition to take a game off the shelf because there will be murder and death and killing in my game. I am also not going to whine if someone takes a game off a shelf because an innocent store clerk in a game, unarmed, is shot at point blank range...and happens to be a man.

The point of this is whether a retailer can make a choice on what to sell, not the gender of the virtual prostitute in the game. However, the fact that there are so many games where men butcher and murder each other, complete with gushing blood and screams of agony makes me think you guys are not at all being honest with yourself. As gamers and developers, you built the system, you made it happen, and you created a market. Now a game decides to kill a woman in a game and people yell. Maybe if you made killing a man in a game more rare, less the norm, people wouldn't be so desensitized to violence against men...and yeah, we are, sad to say.

 

I don't care for killing in games as a form of fun, and guys who just kill each other all day and pretend to stick their testicles in one another's mouths do not generally make for good conversation. They're idiots. That's why. Because they're all 79 IQ queer-bashing, porn watching, women abusing assholes. You can play GTA 3 and remain true to your character's mission... take out bigger assholes than yourself and make a fortune. Okay, so you're a silent vigilante. That's how I looked at it. But still some parts made me... well, I never knew about the hookers. I heard about it on the news. The rest of the games after this made you a loud mouthed asshole who deserved, in my opinion, a prison cell with a large man named bubba. I couldn't complete vice city and stopped playing gta games after that.

These days my "violence" is cartoon, and it's aggressive toward zombies and skeletons.

When a zombie advocacy group forms then I'll stop.

 

Zombies scare me. Please keep killing them.

 

No but seriously I think Grand Theft Auto violates ethical and moral standards of a society that we live in. People who play games like that and watch movies like Scarface and just sit around glorifying and criminal violence we should be able to round these people up and ask them a lot of "questions".

People's attraction the games and movies entertainment like this is a probably a very good barometer for the propensity toward criminal, or at least unethical behavior. At the absolute minimum it can be used to gauge a person's mental health level.

 

This is why threads get locked.