i dont know man you know im pretty blind to these tropes and shit, i dont pay attention to that, its entertainment afterall, i legitimately dont know if the game is sexist or anythingerttheking said:
Target Audience
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
like i said before, if it was a matter of image, if they wanted to pull all violent games to make the store more family friendly etc, i would be annoyed but i would understand it as a business decisionKazeAizen said:
but no, GTA was targeted specifically, and the argument used to target the game was a complete lie, whenever you consider the game sexist or not, it absolutely does not encourage violence agaisnt women
It was a PR move by Target Australia. A dumb PR move but a PR move none the less. That's all it comes down too. Whatever this was censorship is not the word I would use to describe it as many people are. It was simply a company trying to save its public image because of some stupid petitioners. Letting "the market decide" doesn't always get to happen.NuclearKangaroo said:
Replace "soccer moms" with "survivors of sexual assault and victims of the sex industry" and you might have something there. Is it really so difficult to imagine those types of people being sincerely offended by a game that tacitly encourages you to murder prostitutes (statistically one of the groups with the highest percentage of victimization, physically and sexually)?Metalix Knightmare said:
Edit: just some other thoughts. Considering how livid a good many people seem to be over the supposed misrepresentation of GTA in the original petition, I'd think people would be better about not misrepresenting the petition itself. Time and time again I've seen people framing this as some sort of Parents Watch Association hit job of GTA, instead of what it is. And what it is a sincere (if slightly poorly worded) plea to not endorse behavior that has victimized and hurt the original petitioners.
Disclaimer: I bought GTA V, I played it, and I found it's female characters to be uniformly horrible. With the exception of maybe one grandma with terrible taste in men.
Perhaps it's because Operate Disrespectful Nod was directly tied to Gamergate and this petition wasn't directly tied to feminists. I mean, yeah, it's horribly biased of me to rely on things like facts because...wait, what?insaninater said:
You know, I'm still waiting on your to back up those claims you made. And maybe you of all people shouldn't be so quick to complain about someone being "blinded by loyalties."
So, again, why is it okay when Gamergate does this? Why does a bunch of butthurt geeks on the internet get to dictate what content I choose to enjoy?
How is it dumb? What corporation wouldn't choose the larger portion of their business in a boycott situation?KazeAizen said:
Yes, but if you address it honestly, then the outrage looks kind of ridiculous.Azure23 said:
Hey, remember when you were telling people to stop being offended on X's behalf, and a bunch of Australians told you to do the same?NuclearKangaroo said:
I really wish you'd practice what you preach.
Its just kind of dumb on their part as now its creating more publicity for the game and they'll lose out on sales to competitors. I mean I'm sure I would've probably done the same thing in their situation but out of this whole thing the only one that hurts for cash is Target.Zachary Amaranth said:
It's only dumb if they were a sizable part of the GTA market, and if that GTA market outweighs all the so-called "soccer moms." This is the only instance in which it "hurts" them cash-wise.KazeAizen said:
Can you demonstrate this is the case?
Eh I can't really. GTA is a big game though and some people I know go out of their way to shop at Target to avoid giving money to things like Walmart. Still this whole thing got people talking about the game and its not even the "bad" kind of publicity. I think people with a brain just think its all kind of dumb while other people are crying censorship which it isn't. Again the only one that really benefits from all this is Targete's competition and Rockstar.Zachary Amaranth said:
You're not Australian, however. Australians here have claimed virtually nobody buys games at Target there, and someone even claimed that they represent a whopping 2% of retail game sales in Australia.KazeAizen said:
Target benefits by not losing customers over an infinitesimally small market share of a product they don't get a lot of demand or money for. This is compared to people who are potentially far more lucrative. It's unlike you'll see much of a sales spike elsewhere, either, unless Target really does represent a large portion of the market. So you're not demonstrating any real benefit for anyone else or any drawback for Target. Unless you count idiots trying to ban the Bible to make a "point" about censorship or whatever.
Maybe they do in the States, but I'm fairly sure that Walmart does no exist in Australia. But even with the people here in the States places like Target are not the go to for gamers. Places like Target are good if there happens to be a sale, or if you are a parent picking up the newest AAA title for your child. But for gamers a GameStop (Or for Australia EBGames) works better. Even a media and tech store, so whatever Austraila's equivalent to a store like Best Buy, would work better. There simply is more stock at a store centered around media than an all purpose store like Target.KazeAizen said:
I mean, not judging you if you do, but do you shop for games at the US Target? Like as much as I prefer Target to Walmart who shops there for hardware and software of any kind on the regular?
Which part? The part where you've defended Gamergate or the part where you've tried to dismiss this as not a part of Gamergate? Both are disingenuous.insaninater said:
If that's exactly your issue, you're saying you oppose Gamergate.
Which leads me to believe it's not exactly your issue. You only seem to have a problem when "feminists" do it. One group boycotts to eliminate content that they find offensive, and you attack people who are against it. Another group boycotts to eliminate content they find offensive, and they're clearly in the wrong.
To the contrary, I've spent "something like a week" now watching you misrepresent people and try and shift the goalposts. Most of your argument was about feminists and true feminists, so even if this has taken a week it was in no way defending the boycott. However, I do seek consistency, and when you stick up for Gamergate but rail against the wicked feminists and both are boycotting to "censor" content, I look to reconcile those two.
I think in all probability, you only care about the one because "feminists"--in this case, women--were involved. This is by and large the Gamergate MO.
On the other hand, I support the right of the consumer to boycott, and I do so consistently. Neither the act of supporting the right to boycott--by which logic, I am also a Gamergate supporter--or pointing out that you're inserting feminism because of convenience actually constitutes defending the group that did it.
At least, no more than I've "defended" Gamergate or other groups I think are full of shit or even outright disgusting (WBC, Duck Dynasty, etc). You, on the other hand, defend one group and criticise another for doing the same thing.
In my neck of the woods, Target has often had better prices, a better selection, and for music, they've had the unedited versions of albums. I used to shop there a lot over Wal-Mart, though I'm also an American and can't speak to how the business is run on another continent. But Kaze may be in a similar situation. Even still, that doesn't make it relevant to Australia.mecegirl said:
I generally shop there if I have something small on my list. About the only thing I pick up there on the regular are movies, but that's because where I've been living for the past 10 years(Savannah, Ga) has an inconveniently placed mall. So sometimes I'm too lazy to go all the way out there just to visit Movie Stop(which has much better prices because they sell used movies as well). I am lucky to at least have both a Staples and Game Stop in the shopping center where the Target is. Sometimes the Target has better prices than Staples, unfortunately it also has a very limited selection. I often find myself shopping at Target first(hoping that I can get what I need while I shop for things unrelated to tech) but unless its minor(or current, for instance, I have an older model printer and Target doesn't stock the ink that I need for it) its often not there. So I end up having to go to Staples anyway. For games though its no question. If the Game Stop near me has a limited stock on a current and popular AAA game I want then it can become convenient, but only if I don't want to use Game Stop's trade in system.Zachary Amaranth said:
It's interesting how the regions can lead to different things. My nearest Target was roughly twice the size of the local Wal-Mart until they upgraded to a Super Wal-Mart or whatever (I think their inventory is over 9000 now?), and now they're somewhat larger, but not by much. Target and Best Buy both seemed to keep their prices lower than Wal-Mart, but Best Buy went out of business here (not sure if they're still around or not). We have a Gamestop, but it's a stone's throw away from Wal-Mart, which usually has slightly better prices on everything (so the trade-in would be the only benefit). But, I mean, our Target is a sizable one. I think Wal-Mart only gets away with worse prices because it's got like THE prime location to severe two cities and several dozen towns.mecegirl said:
Our Staples is horrible, though. And the next nearest is too far to use reliably.
He's also repeatedly told us not to be offended on behalf of X, and to ask X what they think, but has ignored that when it comes to Australians telling him they're not his shield.Shanicus said:
This is not the consistency you're looking for.