Agreed. The core of debate is formal logic.

I was under the impression that most people who study genre theory believe genre is inherently divorced from medium. I think we've finally found a subject we can have an informed and interesting conversation about!

Alternatively you just believe a marketing board controlled by competitive monopolists constitutes the entirety of the film industry, which means I'll have gotten excited for nothing. That would make me sad.

Censorship, like any product ban, is equivalent to the government (or some other entity) fixing a price ceiling of $0. This results in black market conditions.

MPAA and ESRB ratings preclude access to the majority or entirety of the retail market. This is equivalent to the government (or some other entity) fixing a front-line retail price ceiling of $0. This results in an increase in price, a decrease in demand, an increase in marginal costs and a deadweight loss. (i.e. black market-like conditions.)

I understand what censorship is quite well. On the other hand, you don't seem to understand the difference between "effectively is" and "is."

Clearly!

If the ESRB didn't exist then game retailers would sell any game to anyone, no matter age, or game content. Oh wait that was the 90's

*early 90's, back when Mortal Kombat was the most devastatingly violent game you could get.

So, we're really trying to argue that a rating system and retail chain that allow such graphic games such as Grand Theft Auto, Wolverine, and a slew of other M-rated games to sell quite well on the shelves at WalMart is effectively censorship?

Somebody has way too much time on his hands.

See? That's precisely my point. Thank you Wookie.

Graphic content clearly sells very well. Obviously the argument that people simply aren't interested in AO titles is incorrect.

But the more important question is, is your customer base interested in them. A store like Walmart that strives to maintain a family oriented atmosphere would 1) be hypocritical to offer such material and 2) anger it's desired customer base.

Even if your customer base is interested in the material, that doesn't mean they want it in your store. Take pornographic videos. They are widely available via alternate distribution from Walmart. Even if 100% of Walmart shoppers view pornographic material that doesn't mean they want it accessible at Walmart.

I really do understand the broader point that you are making that Walmart essentially tells the video game developers what there product can contain but the rest of that statement is, if you want us to distribute it.

AO content could easily be distributed over XBox Live where the hardware platform provides numerous tools to ensure parents can restrict access. Microsoft could charge excessive points, because it can, and Walmart can still sell the core game at the acceptable rating level. Other platforms could take a similar approach. It would be a win-win for everyone (except God).

Joncy's point is that ratings "effectively" cause censorship by providing a convenient method of labeling/categorizing content that retailers can use to decide what content they will stock. As mentioned, buyer power in the video game industry (buyers being retailers) is very high, as retailers constitute a significant part of the downstream distribution channel network, and Wal-Mart in particular is (in)famous for its leverage and negotiating power over its suppliers. Thus, by making it easier for retailers to decide not to stock a particular type of content by attaching label(s) to it, ratings discourage that type of content from being made and marketed in the first place by developers and publishers, which is effectively censorship. If ratings did not exist, for example (and this is speculative, but it is just an example to illustrate), retailers may have to individually evaluate game titles to decide whether or not to stock them, which is impractical for various reasons on both the retailer's side (increased costs are contrary to the cost leadership strategy that is characteristic of the discount retail industry) and the developer's side (there is a substantial amount of increased risk in developing a game that may not be stocked), and so retailers may very well opt to not screen titles on content (one solution), hence not "censoring" anything. Ratings are, in essence, the other solution to this problem, which does allow retailers to discriminate between content.

There are practical barriers to doing so, and the circumstances of a single person versus that of a game development company are different. If a game development company cannot get its product distributed through its primary (or at least major) distribution channels, then its sales volume will significantly decrease, more likely than not, to the point where the revenue it does receive is less than its fixed development costs, in which case there would be absolutely no reason to produce the game in the first place. Hard reasons aside, there are brand image / personality / age implications that come with releasing a game with an AO rating, which can shift perceptions about the company and affect loyalty (and consequently CLV) and/or inadvertently reposition the company somewhere out of alignment with its strategy. Ratings inherently carry a stigma that makes it that much easier for a game to cause this effect; i.e. anything with an AO rating automatically are labeled with a sense of taboo, which causes any company that releases AO games to be associated with that taboo.

Not forgetting controversial games (Manhunt) get a whole bunch of sales the moment they get banned (despite the game being absolute crap)

I quite enjoyed the later levels, where you're fighting the soldiers in black. That was really hard, so actually became a fairly enjoyable stealth game. And fighting that pig thing was cool too

Doom, Duke Nukem 3D was kinda what I had in mind

All of that is irrelevant.

It can still be, and has been done. Therefor, I fail to see where there is censorship.

You can post anti-communist propaganda all over the buildings in China too. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean it isn't censored.

Well that's actually against a law.
There is no law preventing you from making fun of Putin on a Russian Radio station, just the same you're gonna end up in Siberia if you do.

It's not censorship because it's not censorship. Petitio principii. We've been over this.

Wait what? If I make any video game I choose, it doesn't mean it isn't censored?

Come again?

The fantastic part about your argument is that you could use it to claim McCarthyism wasn't censorship.

I don't think you should be questioning the logic or understanding of others.

You seem to forget that, as a whole, video game companies want to make money.

No I just think it's a little absurd to swallow your whole conspiracy theory about films being censored when the whole MPAA rating is voluntary and can be rejected by the producer or director at will.

I just don't bite it.

That does not mean they are censored! If they can't make as much money making an AO game as they can an M or 13+ then that's another situation, but it is NOT CENSORSHIP.

I don't know how to make this more clear. I mean how can ya even claim the MPAA censors movies when the whole system is voluntary.

Sure they can reject it, but then theaters won't show it.

Another situation? Spit it out, because it sounds like censorship to me. Their ability to make money is cut off because they are unable to sell their product. Note the last part. They are unable. It's not a matter of customers not wanting the product in your case, it's a matter of retailers saying "No, sorry, we won't carry that graphic content. Good luck making a profit out of small shops".

It's fair to say that a big reason why retailers won't carry those titles is that they won't sell in the states. I agree with the existence of a rating system - and felt that the ESRB and MPAA took a huge step forward when they published why a film or game was rated as it was. You can't blame the ESRB and MPAA necessarily, though, and call it censorship when it's the majority of consumers that are dictating whether or not something can sell.

It's one of the few times where a free market works, which blows my mind when it does.

Do you people really believe that Walmart etc won't carry AO games because they won't sell? That's a bull**** reason.

San Andreas did very well, sales were good even after the Hot Coffee crap (which earned it the AO) was "fixed". Funny enough, when a mod/crack for Manhunt 2 to restore the AO content was created the ESRB didn't feel like restoring the AO rating. I don't know how well the Punisher game did (reworked to bring down to M) but I don't think it was abysmal.

Why won't Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo allow AO content on their console? Certainly it's not because they can't make a buck.

You can't effectively sell AO games unless they're online, and that's not a choice up to consumers, it's decided by the console producers and retail outlets.

Why didn't the major publishers and film studios continue to work with the people who J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy accused of being communists?

Because the number of people who would boycott them for allowing any adult-only rated content is far greater than the people who would proactively purchase products because of the adult-only rating. Tyranny of the majority is a major part of any censorship-"like" activity.

Someone should change the name of the thread, because you've obviously succeeded in derailing it.

Congratulations.

It's gotten so derailed that it went back in time.

You mean like Requiem for a Dream?



Sorry Matty but that isn't censorship. The retailers are telling the publisher or whomever that they won't sell their AO product.

They can't force them to change their product.

But if they want the retailer in question to sell it, they will have to.

The difference is staggering.

What the **** are we arguing about?


....
Stop posting.

I've seen the picture of the boycotters all playing the game, but I really hope we have an affect on sales long term. I would think that they inevitably will, as I foresee the difficulties with P2P hosting alienating people who didn't even know that was a problem. PC users tend to expect a pretty consistent experience in contrast to the asspain that is multiplayer console gaming.

yeah..having a host on stolen wifi really sucks


the multiplayer for pc is still fun though