backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 38 comment(s) - last by winterspan.. on May 9 at 5:34 AM

GTA IV on the side of a bus  (Source: Joystiq)
Take-Two not happy about what CTA did to GTA

Grand Theft Auto IV advertising is visible everywhere on television, websites, magazines and even outdoor signage. Although there doesn’t seem to be any escaping the marketing barrage, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) decided to remove any ads for the game from its busses, train system and other spaces.

As a result, Take-Two Interactive sued the CTA and sales agent Titan Outdoor LLC, accusing it of pulling ads without an explanation and violating contract and free speech rights. Take-Two is seeking monetary damages of $300,000 – the value of the original campaign agreement – and that the ads be reinstated.

According to Reuters’ reading of the suit, the transit advertisements were removed following a report by Fox News that questioned the ads in light of a recent wave of violent crimes in Chicago.

This is not the first time that Chicago Transit Authority has advertised for the Grand Theft Auto series. In 2004, the CTA ran ads for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, recalled a Chicago Tribune blog. At the time, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich criticized the CTA for the ads, resulting in the removal of all posters.

Gov. Blagojevich has been a long-time opponent of the accessibility of M-rated video games to the public. In August 2005, the Illinois State Legislature enacted the Sexually Explicit Video Game Law (SEVGL) which required all retailers take specific measures for its mature games.

More than a year later, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly ruled the law as unconstitutional. Judge Kennelly also ordered Gov. Blagojevich to pay the legal costs of the video-game industry, which at the time amounted to over $510,260.

After nearly a month of non-payment, Gov. Blagojevich was ordered by the courts to pay the amount of $520,000, which included interested.

Comments     Threshold


In my opinion
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 9:06:22 AM , Rating: 5
They should at least get their money back. Not allowing advertising for the game is ridiculous. Any kid that wants the game already knows about it anyway. Its up to the parents to whether he/she gets it. If they choose to buy it for him/her, thats their decision and their responsibility.




RE: In my opinion
By novacthall on 5/7/2008 9:34:08 AM , Rating: 5
Giving modern parenting quite a bit of credit, there, don't you think? I mean, you even went so far as to suggest that they're responsible for their children.

Apologies in advance for breaking anyone's Sarcasm Detector (TM).


RE: In my opinion
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 9:36:21 AM , Rating: 5
Its not sarcasm when its the truth.


RE: In my opinion
By GaryJohnson on 5/7/2008 9:40:45 AM , Rating: 2
Unless the kid saves his allowance or lunch money, or has money from a summer job. At least, that's how I used to buy (or more often rent) NES, SEGA, & SNES games when I was a kid.


RE: In my opinion
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 10:26:57 AM , Rating: 2
Stores still aren't allowed to sell the kid the game. And if the kid is 17, it becomes a parenting issue even more. As a parent you set what is allowed to be done in your house. Even if they're 17, you still can tell them what to do. They might not like you for it, but thats part of being a parent.


RE: In my opinion
By Polynikes on 5/7/2008 11:23:36 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is many parents aren't even aware of the games their kids play, or that they have ratings.

Not that any of it matters. I've been playing M-rated games since the Wolfenstein days (I'm 24 now) and I didn't turn into a crazy psycho killer. It's not like the same kinds of shit aren't shown on TV, anyways.

There were boobs in Titanic, boobs , NAKED BOOBS, OMFG, and that movie was only PG-13! The kids can't take it! They're all gonna turn into sexual deviants! Get that shit off the silver screen!


RE: In my opinion
By theapparition on 5/7/2008 1:03:44 PM , Rating: 4
It's the same old debate. You can kill anyone you want in GTA, but the minute you see some simulated sex(hot coffee mod), the game becomes AO and gets pulled off the shelf.

The NY Post showed the bloody picture of a murdered teen on the cover, but instead.....the country got up-in-arms about .5sec of Janet J's flash.

And we wonder what kind of message were sending when all the signals are mixed up.


RE: In my opinion
By Polynikes on 5/8/2008 1:43:56 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. It's a strange world we live in.


RE: In my opinion
By winterspan on 5/9/2008 5:34:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a strangle world, it's a strange country we live in.

It's an odd and twisted synthesis of hypocritical, self-righteous christian politics, the conservative demonization of sexuality, the violence obsessed/immune society, and modern media's sensationalism all rolled into one giant cluster*uck.


RE: In my opinion
By GaryJohnson on 5/7/2008 11:25:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stores still aren't allowed to sell the kid the game.


AO games usually yes, but M games not always. Some states/municipalities have laws & some retailers have policies against it, but some don't.


RE: In my opinion
By afkrotch on 5/7/2008 3:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
Shoot, sometimes it's harder for a kid to get model paint, than it is to get an AO rated game.


RE: In my opinion
By lightfoot on 5/7/2008 4:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
Name just one AO game that kids can get their hands on, and the re-rated version of San Andreas (that was packaged as M) doesn't count. I can't even think of an AO game - major retailers won't even carry AO games.


RE: In my opinion
By FaceMaster on 5/8/2008 4:40:57 AM , Rating: 2
...Or they could steal it


RE: In my opinion
By callmeroy on 5/7/2008 9:49:39 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed they should get their money back hands down.

I'm on the side of any of you that think its messed up how games are blamed for the cause of violence, however it does seem quirky to me that a city government agency would sponsor a game that includes possible violence against law enforcement. That logic is strange to me -- its like a vegatarian offering gift certificates to the local steak house as long as you attend their speech.


RE: In my opinion
By tubalcain on 5/7/2008 10:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
I see your point but its no different than seeing an ad for Die Hard where cops die all the time or any other movie which depicts violence as they love too run full size ads on buses,subways,etc. especially in New York.


RE: In my opinion
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/7/2008 10:17:59 AM , Rating: 2
The CTA would run ads for cocaine if the laws let them -- they really don't care where they get their funding from. This was all a move by the governor to undermine the city's efforts to fund its transportation, and push his agenda at the same time.


RE: In my opinion
By phatboye on 5/7/2008 10:06:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not allowing advertising for the game is ridiculous. Any kid that wants the game already knows about it anyway. Its up to the parents to whether he/she gets it. If they choose to buy it for him/her, thats their decision and their responsibility.

I could use that same logic to argue why the tobacco companies should be allowed to advertise cigarettes to children. Agreed they should receive a refund if they haven't received it by now, but your logic is flawed.


RE: In my opinion
By SavagePotato on 5/7/2008 10:23:08 AM , Rating: 5
Apparently both your logic and your reading comprehension is flawed. The article states that they pulled the ads based on local crime statistics, no doubt falsely attributing the game to those statistics. Not because they believed children were committing those crimes.

Furthermore the ads are in no way specifically directed at children. You are guilty of falling into the same stupidity that organizations like fox news does in the assumption that video game = children only. No it is a mature rated game 17+ and that is perfectly appropriate. Comparing it to advertising cigarettes is ludicrous. Comparing it to advertising mature movies would be more on par, but I guess we mustn't do that because a child might see the ad.

People need to pull their head out of the sand and then bang it on a wall. Sheltering kids from reality does nothing to help raise them properly. Teaching them values and doing your job as a parent on the other hand does, but hey that's alot to ask I know, for people to take f-ing responsibility when they decide to exercise their god given right to spread their legs and start spitting out kids because some biological imperative told them to.

Here is a better suggestion. If you don't think responsibility and hard work is involved in raising kids do the world a favor and don't have them. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea if you are an irresponsible moron that shouldn't be raising a cat much less a child.


RE: In my opinion
By FITCamaro on 5/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: In my opinion
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2008 10:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
And I was in no way advocating waiting until you're married for sex. I sure as hell didn't.


RE: In my opinion
By deeznuts on 5/7/2008 7:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hey those dolls the White Sox got in trouble for don't count!