Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

Retailers Won't Sell New Acclaim Game 748

Posted by timothy
from the our-roof-our-rules dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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 Dimensio (311070) <darkstar@ i g l ou.com> on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:17PM (#4449870)
    Acclaim has announced that the refusal of some retailers to carry the game would have no impact on sales, as no one has planned to buy the worthless piece of crap anyway.
    • by coene (554338) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:27PM (#4449946)
      On some level I agree (the Tony Hawks and BMX games popularity is a little crazy -- and this takes is a step further), but on a complete different level... This game looks funny as hell.

      If you havent seen the trailer, http://www.fileshack.com/file.x?fid=1222.

      Seriously, the trailer makes it worth a rent at minimum... What red blooded male doesent like sports + nudity + pimps + hookers + weapons.. Especially in digital form!

      Hey, the world is in moral decay.. and its only gonna get worse. This is the biggest step forward since GTA3. I say enjoy the ride.
    • 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 tswinzig (210999) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @10:34AM (#4453208) Journal
        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.

        Not only that, but Wal-Mart is the only national chain I know of that continues to sell all sorts of guns and ammunition (mostly shotguns and rifles).

        BTW, it is NOT funny to go into Wal-Mart and tell them you need more .223 ammo, "because you ran out."

        Trust me!
  • Some places sell it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Henry V .009 (518000) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:17PM (#4449875) Journal
    There is all that Playboy and Penthouse software on the top shelf of the computer software section at Hastings...
  • 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.
    • But with Leisure Suit Larry you had to prove your age by answering questions to prove your age. Answer them correctly, and the blinds would rise all the way

      oh, and you had to wait for the '91 remake [mobygames.com] to get 256 colors. Like you said, not exactly the realism you'd get today

    • 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 Kraegar (565221) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:44PM (#4450052)
      Ask the man himself, Al Lowe [allowe.com], creator of the series.
  • by bo-eric (263735) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:20PM (#4449895)
    [...]with prostitutes and pimps
    and main characters


    Prostitutes and pimps - sure, but main characters? Won't somebody please think of the children?
  • by Monkelectric (546685) <<slashdot> <at> <monkelectric.com>> 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."

    • 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
      • by SSJ2 Labsuit (513035) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:13PM (#4450268) Homepage
        Americans are a puritan bunch... and the puritans did approve of killing people (remember, they burned witches for entertainment value)... just not of sex.

        That's not strictly true. The Puritans were a somwhat repressive bunch, like most of the religious colonists of their day, but they weren't quite as prudish as their name makes them sound. They strongly disapproved of sex outside of wedlock -- but once you were married, it was a different story. They believed a healthy sex life was an important component of a successful marriage, to the point where Puritan ministers actually acted as "sex councilors" if things weren't going well! Puritans actually thought that sex was a kind of duty -- if God didn't want you to do it, he certainly wouldn't have given you such a strong sex drive.

        Compared to the "puritanical" groups we have today, the Puritans themselves were pretty sexually liberated.

        As for the killing, well, I think you're pretty much on the nail with that one. But again, that was a widespread problem. For most of human history, life was pretty cheap. Killing for various purposes was a common occurance, despite the fact that every Sunday people told each other not to do it. It is only comparatively recently that the right to life has been well respected.
        • Killing and violence have been commonplace throughout history. Sex has been pretty popular too, judging from the six billion people on our planet today. Every society condemns violence. Yet many cultures that depend on sex to propagate their values treat sex as a shameful act. Who the hell pulled that manuever?

          I doubt that historically all cultures have been so prudish. What kind of organization could propagate such a ridiculous idea to so many people? Hmmm...
      • by dillon_rinker (17944) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:25PM (#4450360) Homepage
        and the puritans did approve of killing people (remember, they burned witches for entertainment value)... just not of sex.

        PUH-LEASE!

        How do you think they made little baby Puritans?
  • 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.)

  • What a joke (Score:4, Interesting)

    by swagr (244747) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:21PM (#4449900) Homepage
    Books, comics, movies, tv shows, news and games with violence are everywhere.
    Violence is OK everyone.

    A naked person, though, will destroy the fabric of society as we know it. And s*x, I won't even dare say the word.
    • by Hektor_Troy (262592) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:32PM (#4449976)
      Actually it's worse that you think.

      Think about it for a moment; there are only two words you need to mention, to show the bias in the media: "fucking" and "farting".

      You can have a fuck-specialist on the news, who's just written a book about how to fuck, who to fuck, how to feel after you fucked and who you should fuck next. You just don't call it fucking. Hell, look at day-time TV. You know that in that soap-opera you enjoy, all it really revolves around, is did he fuck her, has he fucked her, who else did he fuck, did she fuck someone else and what the fuck is going on.

      But - when was the last time you saw ANYONE even talk about farting? You've never had anyone on the Late Show who's just written a book about how to fart, who to fart at, how to feel after you farted and who you should fart at next.

      Farting is WORSE than fucking! Think about that for a while.

      (With apologies to George Carlin).
    • 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
      • 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.

      • 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.
      • Re:What a joke (Score:5, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @02:45AM (#4451833) Homepage Journal
        You know, I once cited a study commissioned by the Nixon administration which failed to find a link between pornography and sex crimes. I was much younger then; Now I find it extremely amusing. My english teacher probably thought it was brilliant for someone who chose to argue the devil's advocate point of view to choose something from that funding source.

        Anyway, I think it IS likely to cause spontaneous stripping. People are more readily programmed by television than you think. It puts [dieoff.org] you [disinfo.com] into [ivillage.com] an [everything2.com] alpha [everything2.com] state [everything2.com]. (Boy is it hard to find reasonably reputable links about that!) As such, you are more suggestible (it is similar to the state achieved during hypnosis, though with somewhat different results here, we hope.)

        Now, am I saying that guys are going to run around raping people because they see more porn? No. In fact, some studies have shown just the opposite. If you don't make people feel guilty about sexual urges they're more likely to beat off and get all that tension out of their system. Then they can just beat women up instead of raping them, like good little Americans. Hey, it works for football stars.

        Will there be more unprotected sex? I'm sure there will be more sex, and a certain percentage of it is unprotected. So you could say yes, but probably not. Then again, if you make people horny enough they sometimes skip the protection and move right onto the beast with two backs phase of the evening.

      • Re:What a joke (Score:5, Interesting)

        by squaretorus (459130) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @03:27AM (#4451985) Homepage Journal
        I live in the UK. On Sunday night Channel 4 showed A Clockwork Orange at last - first time on UK TV (other than cable). Very good movie.

        Plenty of violence and nudity and drugs and the old in out in out.

        What did my partner say at the end? "Was there any need for all those tits? Kubrick was a dirty old man wasn't he! No dicks though you notice!"

        No mention of the hefty doses of violence, sinister political activities, etc... just "why so many tits"

        Why do I mention this? Because I think the whole anti-nudity thing boils down to guys not wanting to see other guys dicks on the TV.

        The latest thing to stir up the tabloid is Tipping the Velvet, a BBC period costume drama with healthy doses of girl on girl lesbian action. Complaints to the BBC are all about how LITTLE action there was. Safe. No guys. Everyone wants to watch!

        Equality values are so live, especially in my neck of the woods, that any unequal representation is offensive - particularly if its seen to exploit the ladies. For many, the glimpse of boobs in Fifth Element is more offensive than 'that scene' in Reservoir Dogs. Simply because of the exploitation.

        Also, nudity is often surplus to the plot. Shooting someone in the face brings the plot along, because that character is now dead. Seeing some chicks ass doesn't move the plot alon in the same way most of the time. It's just eye candy. So its easier to look down on and condemn. Which film would make more sense if you saw a penis in it? Which would make less sense without the tits? Without the guns? without the swearing?

        Personally - I'd throw it all in and let people make and show what they want. Clockwork Orange was a good film. Fifth Element was not. Nothing to do with the tit count, gun count, or how many times a big guy says 'Shit!' as someone comes into shot.
  • 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.
  • Not unusual... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yert (25874) <`mmgarland3' `at' `gmail.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 ultramk (470198) <ultramk&pacbell,net> on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:53PM (#4450113)
      of course, the real question is, what are you doing with all those paper towels?

      hmmm?

      nevermind. i don't want to know.

      m-
  • sigh (Score:3, Funny)

    by tx_mgm (82188) <notquiteoriginal ... m ['gma' in gap]> on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:23PM (#4449916)

    good, my little 6 year old billy is way too young to see such vulgarity! the makers of this game should be thrown in jail for exposing our children to this filth!
    now, if you'll excuse me. i need to take billy to the movies, he wants to see the transporter.

  • 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...
  • by asv108 (141455) <alexNO@SPAMphataudio.org> on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:24PM (#4449919) Homepage Journal
    I beleive there were also similar efforts back in the day invlovling Leisure Suit Larry [google.com], but I doubt any of those retailers sold PC games during the 80's and early 90's when Leisure Suit Larry was at its peak. This probably the best publicity going, especially if the game isn't that good, which I can't imagine how BMX and XXX would go together well.
  • well... (Score:3, Informative)

    by jgerman (106518) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:24PM (#4449925)
    I'm pretty sure Wal-Mart sells rated-R movies (including those arguably targeted at the same age group as this game is


    Walmart does however, sell censored versions of a lot of media. Which is why I refuse to buy anything there. I'd hate to bring a cd or dvd home that's been Walmartized.

  • by Perdo (151843) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:24PM (#4449926) Homepage Journal
    Dear Walmart,

    Thank you for insuring that our new game "BMX XXX" becomes the most sought after title to ever hit the market. You see, in our business there is no such thing as bad publicity, which you have provided us in spades. We are now the "Sopranos" of the gaming world. There is nothing like controversy to insure we have an audience.

    Again, Thank You.

    P.S. We're sorry you are going to miss the sales revenue generated by this sleeper cult classic... On second thought, we could care less about your puritanical revenue model destroyed by a week's loss in imports.
    • 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.
  • Acclaim... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Schnapple (262314) <tomkidd@nosPAM.viatexas.com> on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:27PM (#4449944) Homepage
    ...is the greasy turd on the game industry. What with buying ad space on tombstones, to paying people to change their names to "Turok", to paying speeding tickets for people on their way to buy their racing game, they're scum (though all these promotions did originate in the U.K.). Plus, Acclaim is the "quick and dirty" game house - when you want your property made into a game qucikly and don't give a crap about the game being good (any South Park game, any of the Batman movie games), Acclaim will proudly take your money and make you some piece of crap in a record amount of time.

    Acclaim is to the game industry what Troma is to the movie industry.

    On a related note, does anyone know if this game will use the extremely rare "AO" (Adults Only) ESRB rating?

  • 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.
  • comment (Score:4, Funny)

    by sstory (538486) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:28PM (#4449956) Homepage
    I can't see that this is a big deal. I'm a member of the ACLU, and don't see anything wrong with Acclaim making the game, or people buying it, but is it a big deal that a store doesn't want to sell a bmx game with naked chicks in it? No. I can't even remember the last time I was in a Wal-Mart.

    On another note, this game might be just what it takes to get me into gaming. Final Fantasy didn't do it, but if Aki had been naked....

  • 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?
    • Re:Eminem (Score:5, Informative)

      by Powercntrl (458442) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:50PM (#4450098)
      So the following sample of Eminem lyrics

      That's actually Ja Rule. Eminem has made a point of the fact that he won't say "nigga" because he is white and for a white man to refer to a black man as a "nigga" is considered derogatory. If you actually listen to Eminem's message, it's basically self-parody. He's got a point that if this country was truly so shocked by what he had to say, NO ONE WOULD BUY HIS ALBUMS.

      A better analogy would be that Wal-Mart sells shotguns. Killing animals with firearms = good, playing a video game with virtual tits and ass = bad. That's just typical good ol' boy thinking anyway - it's to be expected from Wal-Mart.
  • by Anonvmous Coward (589068) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:32PM (#4449975)
    ... until Kazaa users turn ethical.
  • 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 Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:38PM (#4450016)
    When Acclaim was asked to comment on the current situation, the CEO had this to say:

    "I am outraged that consumers are even THINKING that we are targeting children. Every CD bought comes with a EULA that requires them to return the merchandise if they are not at least 21 years old."

    When asked why Acclaim gives 5 packs of Pokemon Trading Cards with each purchase, he had no comment.
  • 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.

  • by cdf12345 (412812) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:45PM (#4450064) Homepage Journal
    Remember when everyone kept saying that all that matters is how well the game plays? Not how it looks.

    Its based on dave mirras bmx so it actually is very playable.

    Now i have to rip on best buy a little here. I understand, hell i expect censorship from walmart, theyve been censoring their music for years. But bust buy? Come on! Look at all the movies they sell (and ive bought) un edited: requiem for a dream, mulholland drive (nice lezzie scene there) and countless anime titles. Why are games different?

    I see. Texture maped polygonal nipples are a danger to america and our way of life!

  • 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.
  • by Sarin (112173) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:49PM (#4450090) Homepage Journal
    I'm pretty sure alt.binaries.cd.image is going to carry Acclaim's new video game, so distribution is all fine.
  • 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.
  • Game Details: (Score:5, Informative)

    by stockpile (536767) on Monday October 14, 2002 @08:59PM (#4450156)
    I'm a store manager for one of the video game chains that will be selling BMX XXX, and last month I got a chance to hear about the game from the people at Akklaim and even saw a bit of game footage. Here is what I took away from the preview: 1) This game plays like the old dave mirra games, but with more plot thrown into each stage ( pimps yelling at their employees, monkeys throwing poo, dogs fornicating) 2) Somebody went to great pains to give you the ultimate control in the create a skater mode including breast size and (abscence of) choice of clothes. 3) If you get enough money, you get to go to Scores gentleman's club to watch a video clip of a real dancer. 4) The Gamecube and XBOX versions will have a raunch-o-meter to let you turn off nudity and bad language while the PS2 version will automatically be a little more tame (no full nudity). 5) They made sure to stay in the M rating, as an Ao would mean that the rest of the chains that are selling the game would also drop it from their shelves.
    Basically, it looks like annother lame BMX game that Akklaim is trying to boost sales of by tossing in a little raunch. A good buy, if you have no life or acess to better adult materials.
  • In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fished (574624) <amphigory.gmail@com> 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.

  • Typical (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fiveeight (610936) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:02PM (#4450186)
    This is the problem with censorship nowadays, they're too damn cunning.

    In the past, censorship enthusiasts* were dumb, and banned works of art, stuff that people could defend on quality grounds, stuff that people would get /angry/ about not being able to obtain. Who the fuck would go through a world of trouble to get this thing available in stores?

    I hate censorship, but can I actually be bothered to complain about reduced distribution for an "extreme" sports game featuring hookers? (two /seriously/ overused themes in modern games) So when they want to ban the next Thief or Deus Ex for "encouraging criminal activity" it'll be that much harder to stop them.

    *I know that Walmart not selling != censored, but you have to consider the size of the company and the number of games they shift. When multi-billion dollar companies refuse to have anything to do with controversial and "anti-social" games then it's not long until we're all playing "The Happy Little Elves(tm)(c) go to Disneyland(tm)(r)" and "DMCA Takedown: Piracy Bust".
  • double standards (Score:4, Informative)

    by NeoCode (207863) <unnamedplayer@roge[ ]com ['rs.' in gap]> on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:03PM (#4450193)
    "We're not going to carry any software with any vulgarity or nudity -- we're just not going to do it."

    I just don't get these double standards. They sell all kinds of movies and videos where sex and violence are rampant. Walmart sells Sopranos [walmart.com], American Pie [walmart.com] and some other R-rated [walmart.com] dvds. I am guessing (and hoping) that they don't sell such videos/dvds to underage children.

    Then why in the world they refuse to acknowledge the ratings on the games. The rating are there for a purpose. Of all the big games that are out/coming out, violence is a big part of them. And of course, as we all know from TV, sex follows. Read and understand the the ratings on the games and stick to them. Sell the games like cigarettes if you have to, just don't give me your double standards.
  • 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 mfos.org (471768) on Monday October 14, 2002 @09:12PM (#4450259)
    Custer's Revenge for the Atari 2600 was probably the first game that retailers would refuse to sell. Check it out here [classicgaming.com]
  • by Nintendork (411169) on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:10PM (#4450625) Homepage
    Here it is [bmxxxx.com]
  • by Vegan Pagan (251984) <deanas AT earthlink DOT net> on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:11PM (#4450633)
    VGs with violence always integrate it into the gameplay but VGs with nudity or sexual content make it some side bonus that isn't really part of the game.

    What if there was a video game that did integrate sex into the gameplay? In Japan they've had point-and-click dating games, but what if nudity/love/sex were part of other genres?

    For example, the Japanese have a comic book about a sex sport where a man and woman try to make the other person come first. What if there was a video game about that, styled after 1 on 1 fighting games? There'd be the usual selection of characters and backdrops, but instead of a damage bar there'd be a horniness bar. There'd be plenty of flashy special moves, but instead of doing damage they'd be foreplay moves that raise the other person's horniness bar. Horniness would also be represented visually by clothes falling off, blushing, trembling and heavy breathing. Instead of Mortal Kombat's "Fatalities" or Street Fighter's "Super Finishers" there'd be orgasm moves. I'd want an anime-style game company doing this because the Japanese put sex in their entertainment way better than Americans do.

    I also wonder if abstract or "cartoonized" sex is better than realistic sex. Think of the arguments about realistic violence vs cartoon violence. Some say that kids will be less harmed by seeing fake, cartoon violence because perhaps if kids don't see the real thing, they won't do the real thing. Others say that kids will be less harmed by seeing realistic violence because they'll see the real consequences and fear them. I don't know the answer to that argument, but I do ask: Is fake looking sex or realistic looking sex better for kids? If that 1-on-1 sex game kept the moves but hid the crotches, would it be OK for kids of all ages?
  • walmart censorship (Score:4, Informative)

    by (startx) (37027) <slashdot AT unspunproductions DOT com> on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:27PM (#4450748) Journal
    Yes walmart sells r-rated movies, but censored. They also sell sensored audio cds. For instance, I made the mistake of buying a Cake cd. CAKE for christ's sake, and it was censored. It doesn't suprise me in the least they'd refuse to sell even a censored version of the game.
  • by jasonditz (597385) on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:34PM (#4450771) Homepage
    Its only a matter of time until Namco announces Cocksucker Pacman
  • by ActiveSX (301342) on Monday October 14, 2002 @10:45PM (#4450836) Homepage
    |
    R |
    e |
    s |
    p |
    e |
    c | Acclaim's somewhere around here
    t | X
    +--------------------
    Free Advertisement
  • by goon america (536413) on Monday October 14, 2002 @11:24PM (#4451031) Homepage Journal
    I don't know about you folks, but I know what I want is a place to buy shotguns, Nirvana albums, nudity-containing video games and R-rated movies. I only want to buy these things at a single location.

    What if a store wanted to sell me a shotgun, a Nirvana album and an R-rated movie, but no nudity-containing video game? Well I'd settle for a few porn magazines. Point is, I need a one-stop-shop, and WalMart ain't got it.

    Please, Walmart, for the decent people out there, give us a place to buy recordings of violent acts, endorsements of violence, instruments of violence and porno. Think of the children.

  • by hirebrand (543514) <hirebrand&yahoo,com> on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @12:17AM (#4451249) Homepage
    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."
    Ahem.

    I am a Wal Mart electronics associate.

    We carry Fallout (vulgarity, text), Die Hard (vulgarity, audio). We'll be carrying GTA4: Vice city (audio vulgarity ?).

    We carry very violent games.. (PS2) GTA3, (XBOX) Dead to Rights, the new Mortal Kombat game, (PS2) Mark of Kri, (PC) Mafia, etc etc.

    The register prompts whether the customer is 17 when you ring a [M] rated game, or [R] rated movie. I let every parent know what they're buying -- and kids don't get mature games from me. :)

  • 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 Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @12:49AM (#4451425)
    ...about how "In America, kids watching sex on TV == bad but kids watching violence is OK" really need to learn something about American kids.

    We'd rather have them kill each other than reproduce. It's all part of a master plan.

    "Kill your family, kill the band, then kill yourself. Please make sure you get your WHOLE HEAD in front of the shotgun."
  • 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 supabeast! (84658) on Tuesday October 15, 2002 @11:33AM (#4453586)
    So Wal-Mart will glady sell me a pump shotgun, ammo, and a bandoleer strap, everything needed for a killing spree, but they won't sell me a video game with titties in it?

    Christian America has some very, very fucked up priorities.

UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). -- Andy Tannenbaum

Working...