Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Retailers Won't Sell New Acclaim Game 748

DrEnter writes "According to this Yahoo article, Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, and Kay-Bee Toys are refusing to carry Acclaim's new video game 'BMX XXX'. Best Buy has stated it will sell a censored version of the game. Acclaim is billing it as the first major release game to feature full-action nudity, with prostitutes and pimps and main characters. A Wal-Mart spokesman stated "We're not going to carry any software with any vulgarity or nudity -- we're just not going to do it." I'm pretty sure Wal-Mart sells rated-R movies (including those arguably targeted at the same age group as this game is), so make your own judgement..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Retailers Won't Sell New Acclaim Game

Comments Filter:
  • by name_already_in_use ( 604991 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:20PM (#4449887) Homepage
    That was vulgar and featured nudity and everybody loved it. No stores, as I recall, refused to sell that. Still I suppose the graphics have come a little since those days, perhaps it is the realism that shocks them.
  • by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <[moc.cirtceleknom] [ta] [todhsals]> on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:20PM (#4449896)
    "We're not going to carry any software with any vulgarity or nudity -- we're just not going to do it"

    The walmart spokesman cleared his throat and continued, "The staple of gaming content has always been VIOLENCE. Sure, we'll sell games where you can watch someone get their head cut off, THATS good clean fun."

  • Freudian slip? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr.Dubious DDQ ( 11968 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:21PM (#4449897) Homepage

    From the article: "[...]all said they would not carry the game, a potential blow for the game's exposure. "

    Never mind, of course, that loud refusal to carry the game because of its content will only BOOST interest in it overall...

    (On a more serious note, I actually sort of approve of Wal-Mart, Kay Bee, etc. taking this sort of action. Not that I agree that people shouldn't sell the game, but that I'd much rather see those bothered by it saying "I'm not going to sell it" rather than "Others must be prevented from selling it" [e.g. by legislation] any day.)

  • Double Standard. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by The_dev0 ( 520916 ) <hookerbot5000@@@gmail...com> on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:21PM (#4449901) Homepage Journal
    I can sort of understand why the toy stores won't stock it, but i'm assuming walmart/bestbuy are department stores. If they sell DVD titles (movies) that are R18+ rated, why the double standard for a video game? Did these stores also refuse GTA3 and the forthcoming GTA3:vice-city for their sexual content? It seems a little contradictory to me.
  • by ekrout ( 139379 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:22PM (#4449904) Journal
    Just like one of the posters said on the accompanying message board, this is nothing but capitalism working as it normally does, and working quite well.

    "Developers have the right to make it. Stores have the right to carry it or shun it. We have the right to buy it, ignore it or shop elsewhere."

    Sure, it serves as an eye-popper and conversation piece for news outlets since there's (gasp!) nudity in a video game, but it's not like 99.6% of all 15-year old guys haven't already seen a naked woman on video, in a magazine, or (hopefully ;-D) in person.
  • by The Only Druid ( 587299 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:22PM (#4449907)
    This isn't these stores taking "responsibility", its them acknowledging that the parents who can't police their children properly will shove their responsibility (that of the parents) onto the store. The fact is, if parents were able to actually take care of their children, it wouldn't matter if hard-core pornography was shelved next to Barney cartoons - the kids wouldn't ever actually get access. My parents made it quite clear whenever I was not to be doing something, and when I went behind their backs I was inevitably punished. More importantly, they explained their reasons for each edict, and as a result I respected their decisions as my parents instead of resenting them blindly. Thats the lesson the stores are teaching parents: if you dont take care of your kids, we'll do it for you. Thats plain fucking lazy.
  • Not unusual... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yert ( 25874 ) <mmgarland3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:23PM (#4449910)
    Wal-Mart has a history of selling censored music selections; it's not surprising to hear that they aren't willing to sell a soft-porn version of a game. Especially when you consider that while middle-age men may buy movies at Wal-Mart while the wimmunfolk are shopping; most of the PC and console gamers that buy from Wal-Mart (or K-B, or Toys-R-Us) are under 18.

    That being said, what retailers _are_ going to be selling the uncensored version of the game?
  • by FunkSoulBrother ( 140893 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:23PM (#4449911)
    People will do as they want. If stores didnt carry Grand Theft Auto 3, they would be losing out on a good chunk of change.

    If this game gets that popular, then either they will sell it or miss out on the profit.

    I really dont have a problem with things like this unless it is the government (federal, state, or local) saying that something can't be sold in town, state, or country. If Wal-Mart et al want to not sell it, frankly, its their business.

    Of course it is good that the public stays informed... Wal-mart doesnt get my money when I need paper towels any more if they choose to censor this.

    But that their choice, and I imagine plenty of other people who like dirty games will continue to buy their paper towels at Wal-Mart.
  • by Ashcrow ( 469400 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:24PM (#4449917) Homepage
    From reading the blurb from the acclaim site [acclaim.com] I would say it is not near X rated. While I do think it is compleatly distastefull, I think you can find more sexual content in "Not Another Teen Movie" or "Too High".
  • This just means... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cytlid ( 95255 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:24PM (#4449918)
    ... I won't *buy* it at Wal-mart, Best Buy...
  • The title may be XXX, but I doubt very much the content will actually be X-rated. After all, it is a game with nude girls riding bikes, not engaging in penetrative sex. From all the reviews i've read, it is just a rehash of the last game but with scantily-clad ladies on the bikes instead of blokes in baggy trousers.
  • GTA 3 comparisons? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:27PM (#4449948) Homepage Journal
    I think the article's comparisons to GTA 3 are unfounded. Why? Because GTA 3 had some very innovative gameplay: a continuous and hugely interactive world with missions taking place directly in the environment, a wide variety of exploration options leading to a huge replay value.

    BMX XXX is a.... bmx game. Now I'm not going to say that GTA 3 is a Goodfellas or even a Sopranos but it at least had a semi-adult theme: criminal underworld. It was about as accurate as... I dunno, a CBS Sunday Night movie on the mob. And so there was little stretching the imagination to see that prostitution and drugs and violence would be involved.

    But a BMX game? It's like trying to get people to switch to Linux by lacing nekkid girlie pictures into the kernel. A shallow attempt to spice something up.
  • Eminem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ekrout ( 139379 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:29PM (#4449960) Journal
    OK, so Wal-mart, K-mart, and Quicky-marts can sell Eminem albums (and lots of 'em), but they won't dare sell videogames with 16-bit color depth-versions of naked women?

    So the following sample of Eminem lyrics -- "Ya'll niggas wanna dead..Then wanna ride..Ya'll know the niggas that be steady screamin'.. (Fuck you!).. It's murda murda.. you know it's murda murda.. We scream it.. we yell it.. we livin' murda murda murda" -- is perfectly wholesome, family-oriented poetry, but the aforementioned dorky BMX racing game is just too crude to sell?
  • by Thalia ( 42305 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:31PM (#4449972)
    Why are you surprised? The same ratings scheme applies on television. If it's just people getting shot, well then the kiddies can watch no problem. If it's nudity, that's a problem. If it's MALE nudity, then it belongs on the triple-X channel only. Americans are a puritan bunch... and the puritans did approve of killing people (remember, they burned witches for entertainment value)... just not of sex.

    Thalia
  • Free market. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ekephart ( 256467 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:33PM (#4449988) Homepage
    "I'm pretty sure Wal-Mart sells rated-R movies (including those arguably targeted at the same age group as this game is), so make your own judgement..."

    This is likely because video games present an interactive environment. While movies may desensitize us to violence and sex, video games give us the feel that we are part of the action. When presented this simply (which is how the general public is likely to perceive it) video games with similar adult or violent content are worse than movies of the same genre.

    That said, this move by these retailers isn't something to poo-poo too much. Retailers are free in this society to choose what they carry. No one goes into a WalMart and demands they sell hardcore pr0n. As a corollary these businesses have their respective markets to think about. For instance, one may prefer to buy a book at B&N over some Christian book stores, even though they may carry the same book (I don't know what book but just as an example), because of the "JESUS! JESUS! JESUS!" mentality that store may push on its customers. While they aren't the same, IMHO proselytizing in a bookstore isn't all that different than big SALE signs and such over merchandise. Let's not also forget we do have a free market and where there is a demand for the game there will be someone willing to sell and produce it. I predict much of the sales of this game will be online.
  • by Pauly ( 382 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:34PM (#4449994)

    "A Wal-Mart spokesman stated "We're not going to carry any software with any vulgarity or nudity -- we're just not going to do it."

    Pretty sanctimonious words for the largest retailer of firearms in the US [stopgunviolence.org].

  • by FunkSoulBrother ( 140893 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:34PM (#4449995)
    If stores didnt carry Grand Theft Auto 3, they would be losing out on a good chunk of change. Sears didn't sell Max Payne, GTA3, but they would sell Medal of Honor. why? because it offered realistic views of death. a death is a death no matter how you cut it.. eesh.

    Exactly, thats what I mean. And sears lost a little video game revenue by doing so. Whether it was made up by new shoppers proud of Sears' moral stance i'm not sure, but either way, its their decision.

    Not worth bitching over unless you hold Sears stock.
  • by M3shuggah ( 162909 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:35PM (#4449996)
    ...as no one has planned to buy the worthless piece of crap anyway.

    You're right! Their target audience of lonely guys will probably have enough time on their hands to sit on IRC and wait for slow transfer from the DCC server.
  • by astrosmash ( 3561 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:38PM (#4450018) Journal
    Don't forget Strip Poker for the Apple ][. Of course, I only played it because the game play was good.

    Anyway, I don't think Wal-Mart wasn't around back then. If they had been around I'm sure they wouldn't have carried those types of games.

    So, Wal-Mart sucks, and toy stores like Toys-R-Us are generally for kids so it's no surprise that they won't carry any 'pr0n' games either. I don't think it's a big deal.
  • by joeflies ( 529536 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:39PM (#4450021)
    Even more suprising is that it's getting a game cube release, a platform that has segmented out a family environment. Nintendo's the same company that refused to give a 3rd party publisher (wasn't it akklaim as well) to use "red" blood in Mortal Kombat 2 for SNES (it was changed to grey to give the illusion of sweat).

    Yes, I know Nintendo's changed their policy over the years to accomodate fighting, but I'm surprised that they are going beyond the line that WalMart draws.

  • Re:Eminem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jumpingfred ( 244629 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:41PM (#4450039)
    I don't think that Wal-Mart sells Eminem's music. Certainly Wal-mart.com did not have any. Wal-Mart gets a lot of flack for requesting clean versions of discs for sale at wal-mart.
  • by dilute ( 74234 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:47PM (#4450071)
    I guess you got to "take a shot" when your company is on the way down. GTA is one thing, but this game sounds really smelly gross. Good for Wal Mart, Toys and Kay-Bee for turning up their noses at this.

  • by joeflies ( 529536 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:47PM (#4450075)
    While video games are a big part of Wal Mart's sales, they have to worry about keeping customers that are coming week after week buying stuff OTHER than video games. If they miss the opportunity to sell 5,000 copies of some silly video game, that's nothing compared to losing thousands of morally sensitive customers throughout the bible belt spending a good part of every paycheck at Wal Mart on wine, guns and cigarettes. So if you're WalMart, which do you choose, a decision to carry a game or to avoid creating a controversy with your die hard customer base.
  • Re:Pervsion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PhxBlue ( 562201 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:50PM (#4450096) Homepage Journal

    Someone doesn't have to be "psychologically repressed" just to disagree with you about what represents normal human behaviour and what represents perversion, you know. As long as they're not trying to tell you how to live your life, it's kinda impolite to call them names.

    On a side note, I've met a fair number of "zealots" who aren't Christian, too. Zealots come in all shapes and sizes: Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, etc.

  • by trotski ( 592530 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:51PM (#4450100)
    Theres a bit of a problem here...

    Granted I'm not a BMX person, but what exactly do strippers and nudity and copulating poodles have to do with BMXing??? I mean whats next?

    Water Polo XXX?
    NHL Strip Hockey 2003?

    I mean I am in shock at how low some of these game creators will go; there is nothing special, creative or artistic here. At least other risque games such as GTA or LSL were unique and original. This is completly rediculous. A game like BMX XXX makes pr0n look like tasteful entertainment.

    I am saddend that Acclaim chose to sink to this level and I honestly hope this game does not gain a huge following and become a great sucesss; although, concidering all the free publicity that Toys R' Us and friends are giving this game, I wouldn't be surprised.
  • by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:53PM (#4450118)
    Doubtful that there's connection between this and lax parental responsibility. Different parents raise their kids differently.

    This is about WalMart, et al, making a decision about what they'll sell or not sell, and also avoiding a great deal of bad publicity by carrying the games. The game section of these stores are meccas for kids; no store manager wants to explain to the local news folks why they let school kids buy the games.
  • Re:What a joke (Score:5, Insightful)

    by f97tosc ( 578893 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:54PM (#4450122)
    I am from Sweden but I have been living in the US for a few years now. In Sweden, violence is censored to a much greater extent than in the US, but for nudity it is the other way around.

    I can see the reasoning behind the ciolence argument (although I am not sure to what extent I agree)

    watching lotsa violence -> violent behavior

    But for nudity...

    watching lotsa nudity -> ???

    Spontanious stripping? Unlikely.

    Will young men start raping girls if they see somebody naked? C'mon.

    Will there be more unprotected sex? No, lack of information has to my knowledge never stopped anyone that wanted to get at it.

    Could somebody with longer time in the US please explain. I really don't get it.

    Tor
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:54PM (#4450124)
    Just got back from USA - love Americans had a ball working with them - but you guys have lost the plot!! I can go into Wal-mart and pick up a box of shot gun shells, more guns and instruments of death than I have ever seen in my life and baby camoflage outfits for "Daddys little hunter" - but the sight of a womans nipple or a baby suckling will destroy the fabric of society?
    You've got some sniper running around taking pot shots at anyone in the wrong place, kids shooting school kids and tv news showing people with blood spurting out and dying - but don't mention sex!! Some New Yorker was taken down for fare evasion - a whole $1.50 - good to know the value of life!

    I'd rather have my kids making love than shooting each other We all have a body - we don't all have guns.
  • Re:What a joke (Score:5, Insightful)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:56PM (#4450136) Journal
    Insightful huh?

    Last time I checked, I haven't heard about anyone writing a book about stamps appear on TV. By your logic, Stamp collecting must be far-far worse than sex or farting.
  • In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fished ( 574624 ) <amphigory@gmail . c om> on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:00PM (#4450171)
    And, in other news, Toys-R-Us has declined to give shelf space to "Anal-Sex Barbie". This decision was greeted with shock and derision by free speech advocates, who felt that the elimination of one "slippery slope" might destroy them all."

    I must admit, I'm a bit confused as to when, in the eyes of "Your Smut Online" retailers lost the right of choosing how to stock their shelves while, somehow, you retain the right to buy it. You have a right to speak: you don't have a right to make me or anyone else listen.

  • by jasonditz ( 597385 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:01PM (#4450176) Homepage
    As far as I can tell this is just Dave Mirra 3 with new levels and boobies. Why does letting you ride your bike past dogs having sex make this a revolutionary title? Why should people who didn't buy the last BMX title (or bought it and wish they hadn't) bother with this? Give the public a little credit Acclaim, at least GTA3 was fun to play. I'd work on fixing the glaring play control issues in your title before I go: "Hey, our game isn't selling, I know, lets stick some titties in it, that'll make it edgy"
  • by Chris Brewer ( 66818 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:04PM (#4450205) Journal
    Being from NZ an' all...

    Wal-mart won't sell a computer game because of a little bit of nudity, yet it continues to sell guns.

    Is there anyone _inside_ the US that doesn't find that just a tad strange?
  • by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:14PM (#4450277)
    Does Walmart sell Penthouse / Playboy / Hustler? No?

    Do they sell Time / Field & Stream / Sports Illustrated? Yes?

    Then why isn't everyone here getting their panties in a bunch over _that_ bias? Why would not the clear policy they have for which print media they retail carry across into the electronic media they stock? Why should a retailer like Walmart make an exception for a one-trick pony console game?

    Hey, Mr. Magazine Man! Yeah, you! You're selling House & Garden, but I don't see no Juggs! What kind of friggin' hypocrite are you? Don't you know this is America, Land of the Free, and I gotta right to buy what I want where I want to? [spit]


    [sigh]
    Sometimes it seems everybody is spoilin' for a fight, but all these Walmart guys are doing is looking to make a living and not piss off their core clientele. Seems to me they're behaving sensibly.
  • by neocon ( 580579 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:14PM (#4450281) Homepage Journal

    No, I think you're missing the point -- the fact that parents have a responsibility to take care of their kids does not in any way take away a store-owner's right to decide what type of establishment he wants to run.

    Nor is this `just' about morality -- the storeowner (in this case WalMart) is making a clear business decision based on the fact that many customers will choose a store without porn in it over a store with porn in it when they take their kids shopping.

  • by NeMon'ess ( 160583 ) <{flinxmid} {at} {yahoo.com}> on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:20PM (#4450321) Homepage Journal
    People who submit articles should proof-read them more carefully because the audience is far greater. If you leave the house with mis-matched socks, expect jokes to be made at your expense. Double check your appearance and writing and there won't be any problems.
  • by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:22PM (#4450340) Homepage
    Only topless nudity. The dialogue and such isn't anything worse than GTA3. No full frontals, definately no sex .. just alot of attitude. Really, if they dont sell this, they shouldn't sell GTA3.

    [sarcasm]
    yeah, its way more moral to carjack and kill people in GTA3 than it is to ride a skateboard and look at women's boobs ....
    [/sarcasm]

    This society has a rediculous double standard when it comes to what kids see and watch .. graphic violence is fine, easily found on their shelves, the heavens forbid we should see a nipple! For crying out loud ...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:30PM (#4450398)
    The contrary will prove to be true. We will probably see an increased interest in the game now that some mahjor retailers have refused to sell it.

    On the other hand, it may very well be a "piece of crap."
  • by Squareball ( 523165 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:33PM (#4450412)
    Yeah
    but it is ironic that they will usually carry games where you can KILL others but the minute you show some one naked it's vulger.

    So the message to the youth... making love is bad. Killing is good.

    so mindless.
  • by yerricde ( 125198 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:39PM (#4450442) Homepage Journal

    I really dont have a problem with things like this unless it is the government (federal, state, or local) saying that something can't be sold in town, state, or country

    This doesn't apply directly to the article, but it's kinda-sorta related: Whenever a telecommunications company such as a cable company or a phone company gets a government-granted monopoly from a local government, then that company has the power to censor. Even under the strictest definition of censorship ("it's only censorship if it's done by a state"), it's still censorship because the telco's statutory monopoly prevents those who want to speak freely from setting up competing telecom services.

  • Yes but how about when everything is gratuitous? You just plain don't have to add this kind of trash to a BMX video game to make a good game. It's stupid. If the stuff actually added to the game, I may see it (say murder mystery game where a guy walked in on his Wife having sex and he killed the guy and you got shown this as your character figured everything out and was describing it in the end). Or something other then a BMX game. This is Walmarts point. It's stupid to sell a censored version, so the chose not to sell it. I think it's their choice. I will still buy my snack foods and caffiene there. I agree Parents should be in their kids lives, but just having this thing on display is problem enough.
  • Let's see now... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:05PM (#4450587)
    Games that glorify criminal behaviour are ok (GTA3). Games that display violent death, scattering blood and body parts is ok (just about any first-person shooter). But a games that displays NAKED BREASTS is absolutely unacceptable! Sometimes I wonder about American value systems...
  • by Stonehand ( 71085 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:06PM (#4450598) Homepage
    Put down the crack pipe.

    The Constitution does not /require/ that anybody own a gun; it merely prohibits the government from banning them or otherwise contriving to render them useless (banning the ownership ammunition, for instance, would likely contradict it, as arguably infringing).

    Nor is any business /required/ to sell firearms -- at least, not by the Constitution.

    Now, at one point a specific Militia Act did require for heads of households to provide themselves with a firearm and ammunition, but that was... approximately 209 years ago, I think. And local ordinances (search for a town named "Front Sight") may strongly encourage the personal possession of firearms... but in most localities, it is no longer required.
  • by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <nokrog>> on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:09PM (#4450614)
    OK you got some things wrong here. The Guns they sell at Walmart are not AK-47's! Sure you can kill people with it, but most of the folks that would buy a gun there are not going to do that. They are going to shoot a 8 point buck for FOOD! Venison is quite good. Paying 20 bucks or so for a deer tag and when you shoot one you get like 100-200 pounds of good meat is a great deal! Sure it's violent. Some folks hunt because they have to not because they want to. I don't think that hunting for food is bad. I do think hunting just to hunt is a bad thing though. I have a friend who loves to hunt, but more because of what he can do with it then the sheer thrill of it. Sure hunting thrills him, but mostly its because he's going to have a full freezer and not have to buy meat for a winter.
  • by Stonehand ( 71085 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:14PM (#4450662) Homepage
    ...or if you're not up to taking on the opposition physically. For instance, if you live in a relatively wild area, you wouldn't want to have to fend off a hungry cougar with, say, a knife... or a fist, which is about what some countries would let you use.

    And I doubt that, say, a 110# female with a sedentary lifestyle could spar with a pair of 170# thugs with a habit of violent exercise... and your 70-year-old grandmother is probably too slow to even try to run. When it comes to self-defense, without weapons, the fight would generally be extremely uneven. .45 ACP, OTOH, would be quite discouraging to an attacker who lacks a death wish.
  • Makes Sense (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Josuah ( 26407 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:45PM (#4450835) Homepage
    This makes sense because it's relatively easy for a parent to figure out if a movie or magazine is R-rated. They know what to look for and how to judge the content.

    You don't need to worry so much about books which contain adult themes (these stores do not carry erotic stories, but do carry books that may contain sexual or adult content) because anyone who can read those types of books is probably old enough to handle it. Plus reading the book places those adult themes into adult context.

    But when it comes to video and computer games, how often do you hear the kid asking the parent what the game is about? It's entirely the other way around; the parent asks the kid what the game is about. It's entirely plausible that a lot of parents will actually stand there and buy a game like BMX XXX for their 10 year old son and not realize what they are purchasing. I doubt the same is likely to occur for a movie that has XXX in the title let alone a magazine.
  • Re:What a joke (Score:5, Insightful)

    by goon america ( 536413 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @11:09PM (#4450961) Homepage Journal
    Could somebody with longer time in the US please explain. I really don't get it.

    I've lived in the US my entire life, and I've never understood it. People here have somehow picked up the idea that naked bodies hurt children, but violence does not.

  • Re:Eminem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jkf ( 85908 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @11:23PM (#4451029)
    OK, so Wal-mart, K-mart, and Quicky-marts can sell Eminem albums (and lots of 'em), but they won't dare sell videogames with 16-bit color depth-versions of naked women?

    From what I've read in OXM, its supposed to be DVD quality video, that they shot themselves.
  • by jameslore ( 219771 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @11:52PM (#4451147) Homepage
    However, if guns are freely available, what are the chances our your thugs not having an excellent selection of their own, as well as being more skilled with them than your sedentary female?
  • Re:Acclaim... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @12:18AM (#4451257)
    But, TROMA makes a stand against the MPAA, they aren't an MPAA member, and the owners of TROMA basically hate the MPAA (and their stupid "you have to pay us to rate your movie so you can sell it to certain stores who don't buy unrated movies, oh, and we rate based on if we like the movie too, bu tthat's not official" rating system). and have you ever watched Cannibal: The Musical or... Viewer Discretion Advised? Those movies rock, man.

    Acclaim is a member of the IDSA, they love the IDSA. They do not say bad things about the IDSA.
  • by marhar ( 66825 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @12:35AM (#4451357) Homepage
    Acclaim has definitely been following a downward path [yahoo.com]. They were delisted from NASDAQ and are potentially in danger of being delisted from NASDAQ Small Cap. They just issued an earning warning.

    Now some guys in suits play the "we da bad boyz" card with a well-orchestrated PR blitz, stupid Walmart plays right into their hands, and all the usual comments are made.

    Scott Adams, call your office!

  • by ajd1474 ( 558490 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @12:36AM (#4451364)
    I believe you... no really i do.

    Anyone who has access to the internet and still buys Playboy really MUST be reading the articles, why else would you by it?

    Unless you are wallpapering or something of course...
  • Simple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @01:18AM (#4451566)
    Ya know that US stereotype of a cowboy - the guy who carries at least one gun on him at all times, but doesn't even take his clothes off to bathe?

    That's us.

    We still think violence is an excellent way to solve problems, and are largely inured to it - hence the reason why we're one of the last countries in the world to allow captial punishment for mentally retarded individuals.

    Besides, violence raises few anxieties in people that affect them directly. Sex, on the other hand, raises all sorts of issues that Americans never deal with - like our own lack of comfort with our bodies. I still think one of the biggest reasons why there is basically no full-frontal male nudity in movies as opposed to female full-frontal nudity, which is quite common, is related to size issues. I wouldn't be surprised if there are guys out there who have refused to se The Pillow Book because they know they'd have to see Ewan McGregor's big dick.

    Of course, I can't really say this is all that much different from other cultures, since I have never lived anywhere but the USA. Let's hope I'm providing some insight, though - I'd be depressed if this is the way it is around the world.
  • And you will quickly realize... the articles are what make it good.

    Oh yeah, there's some hot chicks in there, but you can see hot chicks stuffing themselves with dongs or being stuffed with dongs in other magazines, playboy just has chicks pretending like they're turned on. I'd rather see them getting their poop chute turned inside out, which is why I love the internet.

    Seriously, Playboy has righteous articles. That's why there's a braille edition. The interviews, in particular, are some of the best, or at least have been.

  • by DeathPenguin ( 449875 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @04:45AM (#4452152)
    ...to regain their reputation as a company pushing the envelope in video game vulgarity. Remember how big of a hit Mortal Kombat was when it first came out? Pure shock value. Acclaim made a killing off it, as well as MK2, and even made a movie out of it the video game.

    Since then we've had countless other fighting games, some of which were purely copycat games, others which introduced new technology such as 3D arenas, which Acclaim hasn't really been keeping up with. Now that gore fest fighting games are no longer so offensive, perhaps even tame compared to gore fest shooters like Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament, they decide to make money off the next most provocative cultural taboo--Sex.

    What's next? A game about wife beaters? Kids who set fire to animals? No, I'm not some paranoid Rosie 'O Donnel wannabe, and I'm glad id won their lawsuit against those neglegent deadbeat Columbine parents, but there is a point when it just becomes painfully obvious that some in the entertainment business are out to take advantage of stupid kids with too much money by offering them the forbidden fruit in a medium their parents are likely very ill-informed about.
  • by dinotrac ( 18304 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @07:54AM (#4452496) Journal
    Why do I get the feeling you don't have kids?

    I know many parents (my wife and I included) who work very hard at raising their children responsibly. Many of them forego income so that a parent can remain home with the children and many of those home-school because of deficiencies in our local public schools.

    Trouble is, no matter how responsible you try to be, each of us is only human. Each of us gets tired, has off-days, etc. Even at our best, we have only two eyes, two ears, etc.

    In the (not so) old days, people watched out for their neighbors' children, not just their own. That doesn't happen so much any more, at a time when parenting is harder than ever.

    I greatly appreciate that Wal-Mart makes the job just a little bit easier.
  • by caudron ( 466327 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @08:14AM (#4452542) Homepage
    The United States revolutionary war was more than just a violent overthrow of an oppressive regime, it was a philosophical revolution as well. It was a few intelligent men who said, "we can do better." Those same men also wrote extensively about the nature of authorities to corrupt, They saw the right of the populus to keep and bear arms as the only way to insure that the government had a healthy fear of its citizens. This, they believed, would help keep the government more honest than they otherwise would be.

    That is why we in the United States of America see little wrong with selling guns. As for why we aren't as keen on nudity, well, that I can't say.

    Either way, this is a moot point. Wal-Wart is as free as any other company in America to sell or not sell as it pleases. There is nothing inherantly wrong with taking a moral stand even when I don't agree with it.
  • Ummm.... yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @09:17AM (#4452777)
    How many billions of dollars in sales does Wal-Mart do each year? If you honestly think they are staying up late at night because of the missed revenue for a single video game title, you are sadly mistaken.

    And frankly, there are larger marketing issues here which I'm sure you can't appreciate. Wal-Mart has spent a lot of money to cultivate a family-friendly image. A BMX game that overtly promotes sexuality would cost more to repair the PR damage than the revenue it would generate.
  • Re:I DONT GET IT! (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @09:17AM (#4452782)
    One needs only compare the difference in maturity level regarding sex between an 18 year old who grew up in Europe to one who grew up here to see that our nations prudity is a problem.
  • by Blkdeath ( 530393 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @09:30AM (#4452848) Homepage
    i can't think of a single retailer who would actually stand behind a claim of morality even at the risk of losing a lot of money.
    The issue at stake here, as I see it, is that WalMart is interested in not offending their primary customer base simply to attract a few teens and 20/30-somethings who'll want to buy this one video game. WalMart, for the most part, has a "wholesome" image (or atleast that's the one they shove down our faces in the commercials) and that image is designed to attract the 'happy housewives' of the nation, along with mothers and grandmothers, along with sweet, innocent teenaged girls {nyuk} interested in such strange activities as "power shopping" or some such.

    So in short, they're perfectly free to stand behind their morality issue in order to keep the majority of their customer base happy. Losing a few hundred thousand dollars on the sales of one video game is nothing compared to losing a few thousand customers in disgust.

    Working in a retail environment, I can tell you that unhappy customers do tell many, many people about how pissed off they are. When it's a huge conglomerate like WalMart they tend to get more incensed and get the media involved. I'm sure they don't want that kind of bad press - bad press that could wind up costing them millions.

  • by afxgrin ( 208686 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @11:17AM (#4453489)
    From Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" [bowlingforcolumbine.com] website:

    On August 27, 1999 Bryan Midgette was arrested for abusing his wife, Marsha. Despite a restraining order, Bryan tracked Marsha down three days later at the Wal-Mart in Pottstown, Pennsylvania where she worked. He purchased bullets for his .22 caliber handgun in the store, then chased Marsha through the aisles and shot her before killing himself. Marsha survived, but suffers from severe brain damage.

    For ten years, James Easton Kelly had studied towards a graduate degree in English at the University of Arkansas. Then, his professor, John R. Locke, informed him that due to his lack of progress towards his doctorate, the school was dismissing him. At 11:27 AM on Monday, August 28th, 2000 Kelly went to a Wal-Mart 10 miles from the Fayetteville campus and purchased 50 rounds of .38 caliber bullets. He then returned to the school, went to Locke's office and, shortly after noon, shot Locke three times, killing him instantly. Kelly then turned the gun on himself.

    On May 22, 2001 Laura Gassaway entered a Wal-Mart in Rockford, Illinois, went to the sporting goods section and tried to purchase bullets for her handgun. After the clerk refused to sell to her because she did not have a state firearm owners identification card, Gassaway began shoplifting other items before store security stopped her. The security officers called the police and then took Gassaway to the back of the store. There, she pulled a handgun from her purse and shot three security guards before police burst in and killed her.

    During an argument with his estranged wife on July 31, 2001, John VanGraafeiland threatened to go to Wal-Mart, buy bullets and kill himself. Police contacted the two local Wal-Mart's in Wilmington, North Carolina, warning them not to sell bullets to the man, but no one told the clerk selling the ammunition. After purchasing the bullets, VanGraafeiland went to his car and killed himself. Wal-Mart eventually settled a lawsuit brought by his family, paying them $130,000 for their negligence.
  • Irony (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaytonCIM ( 100144 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @11:29AM (#4453561) Homepage Journal
    A Wal-Mart spokesman stated "We're not going to carry any software with any vulgarity or nudity -- we're just not going to do it."

    From AP: Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, is refusing to carry Sheryl Crow's upcoming album, because one song says the chain sells guns to kids.

    In both cases Wal Mart seems to be simply protecting its most profitable sales: GUNS. We all know video games and good music detract from gun sales. And certainly, kids would want to buy a video game with naked chicks over a new rifle.

    And can we blame Wal Mart? After Congressman Pat Kennedy "motivated" Wal Mart to move Guns away from the toy department in 2001 (effectively destroying the under 18 sales market) and with cigarette sales at an all-time low, Wal Mart must protect its last REAL AMERICAN profitable sales area: GUNS.
  • by cenobita ( 615440 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @01:05PM (#4454425)
    if that's the case, then why have multiple claims been made over the years about not carrying games that largely feature vulgarity and violence? i dunno about the wal-mart stores in your area, but i've never really gotten the "wholesome family image" from them..mostly just an overwhelming urge to vomit, based on the sheer density of morons, rednecks, and white trash that populate the store.

    you are right about one thing, though, in that their goal seems to be to *try* to attract the "happy housewives" and families. however, this goes hand in hand with making more money, because a large percentage of gamers consists of kids between age 13 all the way up for people in their 40's. fathers and kids play the games.

    sure, they're free to stand behind morality in an attempt to keep customers happy..but i don't see it happening anywhere except for their commercials. if they really stood behind it, they wouldn't carry games like GTA3. this goes back to my original point, though: as long as standing against the game is more profitable than actually selling it, they'll stick by it.

    i worked in retail for about 2 1/2 years as an assistant manager at blockbuster.. i dealt with more "unhappy" customers in that period of time than i ever care to again. however, i can also tell you that no matter how pissed a customer got, regardless of the reason..they still came back, time and time again..but why? many of them were so angry, there were instances of the following:

    1.) a customer kicked, and broke, our out-door, all because of a late fee.

    2.) a customer threw a movie at one of my clerks, because of a late fee.

    3.) a customer screaming at me that i'm a fucking idiot, because our VCR units were all rented out. in turn, i screamed something back at him, and told him to get the fuck out until he could act like a rational person.

    each and every single one of them came back again, despite their previous displeasure.

    through all of this, NO ONE complained about our rather large selection of soft porn and violent video games. even soccer moms.

    while it's very true that bad press can hurt a company, it's all short term. the average customer does just that: they consume. their thirst for product or a good deal is greater than their personal code of ethics and morality, and in the end, their wallet determines where they shop..not their conscience.

  • by anomaly ( 15035 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [3repooc.mot]> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @01:38PM (#4454701)
    It was not my intention to suggest that atheists are immoral. I'm sorry that what I wrote sounded like that to you. What I meant to communicate is largely in agreement with what you wrote above - that absent the existence of an objective standard it comes down to the individual's conscience.

    However, when you make that statement, you do two things:
    1) You are stating a moral absolute. (That no absolute exists.)
    2) You are saying that your opinion has more or less merit than someone else's. This too, requires a moral judgment dependent on some sort of moral standard.

    The DC sniper, and Al Queda terrorists are probably acting within the guidelines of their conscience - as do I, and as you suggest above - as do you.

    The fact that we claim to have a standard does not address the validity of that standard. I'm pretty sure that the DC sniper and Al Queda are in violation of what your conscience and mine would agree is reprehensible. The question to answer is why would you and I agree?

    WRT the existence of God:
    When one asserts that there is no God, by the nature of that statement (assertion of a logical negative) one must in one instant have all knowledge of all that exists.

    Otherwise would it not be possible for the thing that is asserted not to exist - simply exist in a portion of the universe about which the person making the assertion is not knowledgeable?

    In short - to authoritatively assert that no god exists requires that one posess attributes that only god could have. I belive that this refutes the premise.

    This leaves us with the concept that God may or may not exist, and we need to determine whether we belive that He does or does not. This depends on evidence and our interpretation of it.

    WRT the provability of the existence of God - I'm curious...what evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

    Respectfully,
    Anomaly
  • by Blkdeath ( 530393 ) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:29PM (#4455638) Homepage
    I'm going to have to agree with Tassach here; WalMart has far more competition (atleast in Canada) than does a BlockBuster. When you're talking movie stores in most of Durham, you find either BlockBuster or Rogers Video. Independant stores are slowly, methodically driven out of their locations to the point where a 30km radius will have six large chains and one indy.

    WalMart, however, has to contend with the likes of Zellers, Sears, Canadian Tire, Home Depot (for their hardware sections), and several other retail outlets. They're not in a safe enough position to tell their customers to go somewhere else if they don't like it, and gratuitous sex/nudity seems to be a really hot button for a lot of otherwise (seemingly) amoral customers.

    And like it or not, gamers are still a small segment of a very, very large society. Typical lower- and middle-class people looking for a bargain on towels and garden rakes make for a much larger segment, and until gamers account for more than 25% of their overall profits (or some other outrageous figure), I doubt they'll put "hookers and pimps" above the wishes of their target market.

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...