Manhunt 2 (effectively) banned

[Alzrius]

I don't buy that. It's not like Sony and Nintendo were unclear on things. If a game gets an AO rating, you can't use their consoles, and the specific materials and code needed to make that game run. The makers of this game don't have the right to use that code however they see fit; they're subject to contracts with the granting companies. They knew that going into things. Sony and Nintendo obviously feel that they will make more money in the long run if they don't allow AO games on their consoles. And that's their decision to make. That's like claiming that someone can spray graffiti all over my wall, because it's free speech. It isn't - it's my wall. You want to do that, go find your own wall.

There were no contracts here. And the decision that they'll make more money from having such policies doesn't mean that such policies are ethical. A more correct example is that you allow people to graffiti on your wall, except if they're wearing a hat at the time. The hat can be removed, just like the rating can be changed, but it's an arbitrary unilateral restriction. And no one, as a note, ever lost money by not being able to graffiti; a company does lose money if it can't effectively market its product.

The only way this is going to happen is if people refuse to shop at the stores that censor their merchandise. These are businesses - if they find out that doing something else will be more profitable, that's what they're going to do.

Doing whatever will make the most money isn't an excuse for trying to shut out artistic expression that you don't like.

Those guidelines exist for two reasons. First, it's because the software industry wanted to avoid having the government step in, and impose some outside ratings system on them. Second, it's because somebody high-up in the retailers decided that it would be more profitable in the long run. The retailers think that the family market is bigger than the Adults Only market. Carrying AO stuff might cut into Family sales, so the AO stuff goes away. These are market pressures.

No one is debating the usefulness of having a rating system. It's when companies all make a decision that anything rated a certain way won't be sold by them. That not only undercuts the review process, but it unfairly threatens the companies that make the game to begin with, and denies the consumers the chance to purchase what they want. Market pressures are not an acceptable reason for that.

As to the stuff about minorities, I don't feel that's particularly relevant to the topic, or appropriate for this board.

It's not political, or religious, so it seems okay for the boards. As for the relevancy, it's about businesses declaring a certain category of anything, be it products or people, to not be in their own, or the public's, best interest not to do business with. Discrimination is discrimination, whether against people or art.

 

[SteelDraco]

You and I obviously have a fundamental disconnect here. I don't believe it's right for a company (either Sony, Nintendo, or whatever retailer you want to name) to be REQUIRED to be involved in something they don't want. You seem to think that whatever Rockstar produces should be approved and produced without any decision-making ability from the other people involved, between the creator company and the consumer.

Unfortunately, there's a lot more going on there. Sony and Nintendo have to be involved; part of what Rockstar is making uses their code. Rockstar doesn't have a right to that, because it's not theirs. You can't make a game for those consoles without going through these companies. And, because of that, they have every right to decide what to allow. Does that make it an ethical decision? Not necessarily, but that's their decision to make. If you don't believe these companies are acting in an ethical manner, don't support them any more. If Rockstar is willing to stick to their guns and put out the game on a system without those requirements, buy it there.

Rockstar isn't going to stick to their guns. They're going to go for the money. Because they're not making art - they're making money. They just happen to think they can make the MOST money by being as explicit as possible. That's their motivation.

Retailers are on the same ground. Personally, I think it makes the most sense for a retailer to have shelf stock of family-appropriate stuff, and be able to order AO content. That's what I would do if I was a retailer, since it's going to maximize profit. But if I was told I HAD to carry something, you bet I'd object. These retailers try and market themselves as family-friendly, and that's their decision.

 

[Vigilance]

The store should not have a policy of not carrying such videos at all. They may not stock them right next to the other ones, but they should be able to procure them for you if you request them, even if it means having them sent over from a warehouse. They can't say "sorry, we don't have that just because we don't think it's appropriate for you."

Wow, the world you come from is much different than ours.

Please understand that no mainstream video store like Wal-Mart, Target or Blockbuster sells XXX Porn on our world during your stay here and that no one (but you) on Earth thinks they should be FORCED to sell anything they don't want.

This is called the free market. It's a little concept we have here on Earth that we're rather fond of.

 

[Alzrius]

You and I obviously have a fundamental disconnect here. I don't believe it's right for a company (either Sony, Nintendo, or whatever retailer you want to name) to be REQUIRED to be involved in something they don't want.

It's not a question of requirement. I'm not saying that a company should be forced to sell something. I'm saying it's unjust for them to unilaterally deny an entire category of products that they otherwise carry/market, especially when it's based purely on an arbitrary ratings system.

You seem to think that whatever Rockstar produces should be approved and produced without any decision-making ability from the other people involved, between the creator company and the consumer.

No, I think that outrightly banning all AO-rated games is a form of censorship.

Unfortunately, there's a lot more going on there. Sony and Nintendo have to be involved; part of what Rockstar is making uses their code. Rockstar doesn't have a right to that, because it's not theirs. You can't make a game for those consoles without going through these companies.

So far I agree; no one is saying anyone should be cut out of the loop.

And, because of that, they have every right to decide what to allow.

To a degree, the same way a business can decide they don't want to work with someone. When they start banning an entire category of something, that's a different matter, as it constitutes censorship.

Does that make it an ethical decision? Not necessarily, but that's their decision to make.

And that's a problem, since we have laws that force businesses to act ethically. That we don't here is a gap.

If you don't believe these companies are acting in an ethical manner, don't support them any more. If Rockstar is willing to stick to their guns and put out the game on a system without those requirements, buy it there.

I am aware of these rights, and I reserve them.

Rockstar isn't going to stick to their guns.

At this point, we don't know what they're going to do. They have the option of appealing the rating decision.

They're going to go for the money. Because they're not making art - they're making money. They just happen to think they can make the MOST money by being as explicit as possible. That's their motivation.

First, you do not speak for Rockstar, and as such you cannot say what their motivation is. Secondly, making art and making money are not mutually-exclusive; you can do both. Thirdly, they are indeed interested in freedom of expression: the statement of their I linked to in the original post says, "We believe in freedom of creative expression, as well as responsible marketing, both of which are essential to our business of making great entertainment."

Retailers are on the same ground. Personally, I think it makes the most sense for a retailer to have shelf stock of family-appropriate stuff, and be able to order AO content. That's what I would do if I was a retailer, since it's going to maximize profit.

I agree, and I think that's a great idea.

But if I was told I HAD to carry something, you bet I'd object. These retailers try and market themselves as family-friendly, and that's their decision.

It's not so much a case of having to have something, as not being allowed to deliberately exclude it. Just because it's someone else's decision doesn't mean they're allowed to not be ethical when making it. There's a reason why ethics in business is enforced.

 

[Alzrius]

Wow, the world you come from is much different than ours.

"ours"? How many people are at your keyboard right now, because otherwise, you mean "mine."

Please understand that no mainstream video store like Wal-Mart, Target or Blockbuster sells XXX Porn on our world during your stay here and that no one (but you) on Earth thinks they should be FORCED to sell anything they don't want.

Please understand that you don't speak for everyone on "our" world, and that you repeatedly try to do so is unbecoming. And of course you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the whole idea of being "forced" to sell something. I'm against things being censored, which includes their deliberate exclusion from the marketplace by vendors.

This is called the free market. It's a little concept we have here on Earth that we're rather fond of.

Well, the alien hive-mind that you apparently speak on behalf of doesn't seem to be aware that Earth also has trade and market guidelines, even in the free market, that include ethical business practices. Earth seems to be pretty fond of those too.

And seriously, Vigilance, for everyone's sake, stop being puerile in the thread. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This is a train wreck of a thread, and I'm reading snarky comments by people who should know better. Alzarius, you particularly need to chill out here.

Thread closed.