NZ Retailer bans violent games

[Salandriagado]

Actually, this might work out to be a decent business move. The people buying those games are probably mostly just buying them online anyway, so the retailer might be hoping to attract more parents buying stuff for their kids (who are more likely to buy them in person) by getting rid of them, and expecting the increased sales from that to outweigh the loss from not selling these violent games.

[Geilinor]

There's always buying online.

[WestRedMaple]

It is entirely their right to do so. If they want to lose those sales, that's their call

It would be unconstitutional for the US to do such a thing.

Incorrect. Nothing in the Constitution mandating which video games a company sells

[The Rich Port]

There's always buying online.

lel, Australian conservatives are like "... NEWMAN!"

[Forsher]

Well I suppose this business is going DOWN given that the demand for video games largely comes from M Rated Games. GTA V, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Assassin's Creed, all of the games have violence and yet they are the largest benefactors to the substantial growth of the Video Gaming sector. GTA V grossed $1 Billion faster than any movie and was out of stock quickly for a lot of people, yet there hasn't been a non-violent video game that can do the same. I doubt the market will respond nicely to this company, and unless they sell the violent games again, empirical evidence will show that they will suffer quite some damage.

This thread is tiny. It is no longer reasonable to expect people to have not encountered at least one of the posts explaining that the Warehouse is not purely a video game shop.

Oh look, yet another moral guardian who thinks that video games make people psychotic.

Quite right, it's only video games with plots that do this. Muahahaha!

I'm sure you're aware that some of the largest big budget games are R18. It's a huge loss of revenue for them, for nothing but sensibility. It's stupid.

Revenue =/= profit. Big Budget = high costs => lower profits for retailers, esp. those contending with shipping costs that are likely fairly high.

My post clearly outlined a number of ways in which your logic quite likely doesn't apply. I think that the Warehouse's management feels that they stand to gain more revenue by removing R18 games and DVDs from their shops than they do from retaining them. In other words, they feel as if their target consumers (apparently, families) will spend more in the absence of such products. This is a reasonable gamble as it would make sense that parents keep their children away from things they don't want to see. For a business whose model involves people making snap decisions based on walking past shelves, that's a big problem.

You've just got to understand that at least 90%* of the Warehouse has nothing to do with entertainment products like games or DVDs.

*Accuracy of this figure based entirely on visual consideration of a typical Warehouse.

Are they removing 18 rated movies?

And what about their top shelf magazines?

I'm not sure they have any.

You have any evidence to suggest violence in video games is harmful?

If you watch a play through of a violent video game, you will see the player taking joy in hurting non playable characters or virtual representations of people. I pleasure in any kind of violence as harmful because the players of these video games could be showing love to real people instead.

People know that they're dealing with unreality.

That said, if you had some whose pleasure derived from grinding an opposing human player into the ground, maybe that'd be an issue in the same way that it would be were they playing soccer.

Someone failed on the whole supply and the demand thing over there.

Er, no. If anything, you fail economics forever. Supply is defined as "the amount of a good or service that a supplier is willing and able to sell at range of prices". They're not willing.

In a more general business rather economic sense, you can generally make more money by not trying to cater to everyone. This is related to the economic idea that specialisation is a good thing.

This sounds like fascism to me.

Wut.

Actually, this might work out to be a decent business move. The people buying those games are probably mostly just buying them online anyway, so the retailer might be hoping to attract more parents buying stuff for their kids (who are more likely to buy them in person) by getting rid of them, and expecting the increased sales from that to outweigh the loss from not selling these violent games.

Exactly. Sadly this thread consists of a lot of small hammers being deployed by medical professionals.

[The Rich Port]

When you take the violence out of video games they aren't a problem.

You have any evidence to suggest violence in video games is harmful?

The APA ruled on it.

Research suggests yes, but a large majority of studies are inconclusive.

[Geilinor]

You have any evidence to suggest violence in video games is harmful?

The APA ruled on it.

It says the policy statement is under review.

[The United Remnants of America]

The problem is that this is New Zealand and there aren't that many options to get games.

Understandable. There's always the internet though, at least for PC games.
Also, by abandoning this portion of the market it's possible that a new competitor might decide to take that entire portion and run with it.

Enter Gamestop.

[The Rich Port]

The APA ruled on it.

It says the policy statement is under review.

That's recent; they only just started reviewing it. Statement's been that way since 2005.

We'll see what happens later in the year.

[Hurdegaryp]

A stupid move and very patronising, but hardly censorship. Although you have to wonder what family values they're trying to protect, especially when you consider that a lot of games have a very combat-orientated approach

The whole concept of 'family values' has become tainted with tradcon undermining of civil rights & liberties and fundamentalist religious agendas, but thus far I haven't seen any proof that this New Zealand retailer is subscribing to those progress-stifling principles. One would think that the free market would quickly generate alternate means to get your hands on those games deemed too violent by said retailer, unless New Zealand is a semi-fascist dictatorship in the making. That would be a rather big surprise, actually.

[Forsher]

A stupid move and very patronising, but hardly censorship. Although you have to wonder what family values they're trying to protect, especially when you consider that a lot of games have a very combat-orientated approach

The whole concept of 'family values' has become tainted with tradcon undermining of civil rights & liberties and fundamentalist religious agendas, but thus far I haven't seen any proof that this New Zealand retailer is subscribing to those progress-stifling principles. One would think that the free market would quickly generate alternate means to get your hands on those games deemed too violent by said retailer, unless New Zealand is a semi-fascist dictatorship in the making. That would be a rather big surprise, actually.

Massively popular right-wing govt. embroiled in numerous intelligence scandals (incl. around voting) whose central policy is summarised by "cult of personality around the charismatic leader". Said govt. currently trying to rewrite history to suit its own ends and wants to create its own flag (suggesting a strongly nationalist agenda). Encourages dynamism through expressing everything in terms of sporting analogies... totally doesn't have any parallels with fascism. Yip yip.

If you try hard enough even smile and wave, Teflon John can be made to sound vaguely fascist. I mean people already say Hitler is literally John Key... okay, one person, once, who wasn't thinking.

[Hurdegaryp]

The whole concept of 'family values' has become tainted with tradcon undermining of civil rights & liberties and fundamentalist religious agendas, but thus far I haven't seen any proof that this New Zealand retailer is subscribing to those progress-stifling principles. One would think that the free market would quickly generate alternate means to get your hands on those games deemed too violent by said retailer, unless New Zealand is a semi-fascist dictatorship in the making. That would be a rather big surprise, actually.

Massively popular right-wing govt. embroiled in numerous intelligence scandals (incl. around voting) whose central policy is summarised by "cult of personality around the charismatic leader". Said govt. currently trying to rewrite history to suit its own ends and wants to create its own flag (suggesting a strongly nationalist agenda). Encourages dynamism through expressing everything in terms of sporting analogies... totally doesn't have any parallels with fascism. Yip yip.

If you try hard enough even smile and wave, Teflon John can be made to sound vaguely fascist. I mean people already say Hitler is literally John Key... okay, one person, once, who wasn't thinking.

What the hell is it with reality always trying to one-up me? Seriously, I want to know.

[Greater Weselton]

Well I suppose this business is going DOWN given that the demand for video games largely comes from M Rated Games. GTA V, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Assassin's Creed, all of the games have violence and yet they are the largest benefactors to the substantial growth of the Video Gaming sector. GTA V grossed $1 Billion faster than any movie and was out of stock quickly for a lot of people, yet there hasn't been a non-violent video game that can do the same. I doubt the market will respond nicely to this company, and unless they sell the violent games again, empirical evidence will show that they will suffer quite some damage.

This thread is tiny. It is no longer reasonable to expect people to have not encountered at least one of the posts explaining that the Warehouse is not purely a video game shop.

Oh look, yet another moral guardian who thinks that video games make people psychotic.

Quite right, it's only video games with plots that do this. Muahahaha!

I'm sure you're aware that some of the largest big budget games are R18. It's a huge loss of revenue for them, for nothing but sensibility. It's stupid.

Revenue =/= profit. Big Budget = high costs => lower profits for retailers, esp. those contending with shipping costs that are likely fairly high.

My post clearly outlined a number of ways in which your logic quite likely doesn't apply. I think that the Warehouse's management feels that they stand to gain more revenue by removing R18 games and DVDs from their shops than they do from retaining them. In other words, they feel as if their target consumers (apparently, families) will spend more in the absence of such products. This is a reasonable gamble as it would make sense that parents keep their children away from things they don't want to see. For a business whose model involves people making snap decisions based on walking past shelves, that's a big problem.

You've just got to understand that at least 90%* of the Warehouse has nothing to do with entertainment products like games or DVDs.

*Accuracy of this figure based entirely on visual consideration of a typical Warehouse.

And what about their top shelf magazines?

I'm not sure they have any.

If you watch a play through of a violent video game, you will see the player taking joy in hurting non playable characters or virtual representations of people. I pleasure in any kind of violence as harmful because the players of these video games could be showing love to real people instead.

People know that they're dealing with unreality.

That said, if you had some whose pleasure derived from grinding an opposing human player into the ground, maybe that'd be an issue in the same way that it would be were they playing soccer.

Someone failed on the whole supply and the demand thing over there.

Er, no. If anything, you fail economics forever. Supply is defined as "the amount of a good or service that a supplier is willing and able to sell at range of prices". They're not willing.

In a more general business rather economic sense, you can generally make more money by not trying to cater to everyone. This is related to the economic idea that specialisation is a good thing.

This sounds like fascism to me.

Wut.

Actually, this might work out to be a decent business move. The people buying those games are probably mostly just buying them online anyway, so the retailer might be hoping to attract more parents buying stuff for their kids (who are more likely to buy them in person) by getting rid of them, and expecting the increased sales from that to outweigh the loss from not selling these violent games.

Exactly. Sadly this thread consists of a lot of small hammers being deployed by medical professionals.

It is a fascist act to ban video games because of violence.

[Forsher]

It is a fascist act to ban video games because of violence.

Statements, statements everywhere
And not a fact to read...

Forsher, after Blake.

Assertions like this just don't cut. Fascist is over-used as is. Please try and explain why it is fascist. The biggest stumbling block, I feel, will be the absence of any govt. input here.

[Greater Weselton]

It is a fascist act to ban video games because of violence.

Statements, statements everywhere
And not a fact to read...

Forsher, after Blake.

Assertions like this just don't cut. Fascist is over-used as is. Please try and explain why it is fascist. The biggest stumbling block, I feel, will be the absence of any govt. input here.

It is fascist since it is moralistic censorship.

[Forsher]

Statements, statements everywhere
And not a fact to read...

Forsher, after Blake.

Assertions like this just don't cut. Fascist is over-used as is. Please try and explain why it is fascist. The biggest stumbling block, I feel, will be the absence of any govt. input here.

It is fascist since it is moralistic censorship.

Is it? Or is it just plain old moralistic censorship?

Does having two sets of parallel sides mean a shape is a square? No, of course not. And by the same logic moralistic censorship does not show that something is fascist (although, I freely admit my understanding of fascism is not the world's best so I'm not sure that moralistic censorship is even an important feature of fascism).

[Greater Weselton]

It is fascist since it is moralistic censorship.

Is it? Or is it just plain old moralistic censorship?

Does having two sets of parallel sides mean a shape is a square? No, of course not. And by the same logic moralistic censorship does not show that something is fascist (although, I freely admit my understanding of fascism is not the world's best so I'm not sure that moralistic censorship is even an important feature of fascism).

Moralistic censorship inherently fascist.

[Geilinor]

Is it? Or is it just plain old moralistic censorship?

Does having two sets of parallel sides mean a shape is a square? No, of course not. And by the same logic moralistic censorship does not show that something is fascist (although, I freely admit my understanding of fascism is not the world's best so I'm not sure that moralistic censorship is even an important feature of fascism).

Moralistic censorship inherently fascist.

Read "retailer", not "government".

[Benuty]

Looks like Joseph Lieberman has given some New Zealanders free lobotomies like they did to Congress during the "Night Trap controversy" to help create the ESRB.

Someone needs to get them back into fantasy land.

[Geilinor]

Looks like Joseph Lieberman has given some New Zealanders free lobotomies like they did to Congress during the "Night Trap controversy" to help create the ESRB.

Someone needs to get them back into fantasy land.

Lobotomies, what?

[Benuty]

Looks like Joseph Lieberman has given some New Zealanders free lobotomies like they did to Congress during the "Night Trap controversy" to help create the ESRB.

Someone needs to get them back into fantasy land.

Lobotomies, what?

Are you asking in reference to lobotomy specifically or what the hell my sentence meant?

[Geilinor]

Lobotomies, what?

Are you asking in reference to lobotomy specifically or what the hell my sentence meant?

Asking what your sentence meant. Some research told we more but I don't know what the lobotomy part was about.

[Dazchan]

It is a fascist act to ban video games because of violence.

It's a good thing that there's a world of difference between something being banned and a single retailer choosing not to stock something, isn't it?

[Infected Mushroom]

New Zealands largest retail group has removed all R18 DVDs and Games (like GTA V) from its stores citing an internal review to ensure that its products reflect its values of Family and Community. The review was sparked by complaints from customers and I can confirm that the founder of The Warehouse Steven Tindall did establish the philanthropic Tindall Foundation in 1994 which is a significant non-government supporter of Community and Family programmes in the country - so he does put his money on the line for the values.

Of course there has been a backlash with adults bemoaning the fact that the countries two major budget retailers of video games are no longer supplying the R 18 games they want. There are screams of censorship, big brother and parental responsibility.

But what do you think NSG, while retailers certainly have the right to remove products they don't like despite consumer demand is it morally sound to be playing censor? Do parents have an obligation to monitor their own childrens consumption patterns and what of the rights to the poor 30-something smhucks who can no longer get an easy dose of graphic violence and sexual content on their PS4?

http://www.3news.co.nz/business/the-war ... 2014112416

I absolutely hate GTA V and what it represents (senseless graphic violence, glorification of anti-government mentality).

Therefore, I have no objection to that part.

Good for New Zealand.

[Benuty]

New Zealands largest retail group has removed all R18 DVDs and Games (like GTA V) from its stores citing an internal review to ensure that its products reflect its values of Family and Community. The review was sparked by complaints from customers and I can confirm that the founder of The Warehouse Steven Tindall did establish the philanthropic Tindall Foundation in 1994 which is a significant non-government supporter of Community and Family programmes in the country - so he does put his money on the line for the values.

Of course there has been a backlash with adults bemoaning the fact that the countries two major budget retailers of video games are no longer supplying the R 18 games they want. There are screams of censorship, big brother and parental responsibility.

But what do you think NSG, while retailers certainly have the right to remove products they don't like despite consumer demand is it morally sound to be playing censor? Do parents have an obligation to monitor their own childrens consumption patterns and what of the rights to the poor 30-something smhucks who can no longer get an easy dose of graphic violence and sexual content on their PS4?

http://www.3news.co.nz/business/the-war ... 2014112416

I absolutely hate GTA V and what it represents (senseless graphic violence, glorification of anti-government mentality).

Therefore, I have no objection to that part.

Good for New Zealand.

Do you even understand the nature of satire?