Take-Two sues over pulled GTA IV ads Comments by Robert Purchese
Chicago Transit Authority slapped with suit.
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-26 of 26 in total
Poster
|
DanWhitehead
06/05/08 @ 09:08
0
They can sue them for breach of contract, though if the CTA isn't charging them anything for the aborted campaign that might complicate matters, but there's no way this is a freedom of speech issue and to present it as such is dangerously naive. The First Amendment only defends speech from congressional censorship - a private business like the CTA is under no constitutional obligation to carry anybody's advertising.
|
|
kangarootoo
06/05/08 @ 09:14
0
@DanWhitehead
Absolutely. My initial thought was "well it sucks, but a business can choose to carry or deline any advert it wants surely?". I guess the only difference here is backing out of a contract, as you say.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/05/08 @ 10:14
|
|
0
@Kanga and DanWhitehead
Of course with a name like Chicago Transit Authority there may be links to the state, the city or some other public authority so the first amendment may well be applicable or at least arguably applicable. Of course breach of contract is probably the argument that will win it and the first amendment stuff is just useful background to get judge and/or jury on side. |
|
0
T2 is trying to come up with excuses for low-sales, maybe.
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/5/is_gt... PS that's low from the shareholder point of view, not geek on street |
|
0
I think this is a very good thing. They can't take their money before hand, and then take the adds down later. They should have been fully aware of what they were advertising when they initially signed the contract. Now Take2 need to sue the MDT too :)
@Goffee The game really hasn't been out long enough for accurate sales figures to be realeased... sheesh, give them some time. |
|
0
Personally, I cannot blame the CTA esp if the org is getting complaints from riders. When San Andreas was out, I only saw the ads in impoverished areas with higher minority populations in Chicago. Those ads stuck me as racist since they did not feature whites toting guns.
The CTA needs the money badly so it must be getting a lot of complaints esp since violence/deaths among the youth is up in the city when the overall murder/violence rate is down. I known VGs do not cause violent crime but reminders of violence will not benefit anyone esp when a 5 year old was just shot. This is a business decision and not censorship. |
|
0
@catul -
Have a look at the pictures of the so called "offensive" adverts. They are simply pictures of the main characters in the game. There are no guns and no depiction of violence in them at all! So your argument doesn't really hold up... It is not the content of the ads, but the content of the game that is being advertised that has caused them to remove the ads. That is not acceptable and that is why they are being sued. Why do they continue to advertise R-rated movies and TV series' which have graphic depictions of violence, far more realistic than anything in GTA (in the film/TV series - not on the ads themselves), but refuse to advertise this game anymore? AFTER agreeing to do it in the first place? It is hypocritical and they deserve to get sued.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 06/05/08 @ 12:39
|
|
actionfitz
06/05/08 @ 12:19
0
"The Chicago Transit Authority has said it will not charge Take-Two for the aborted GTA IV campaign."
fuck, thats awful good of them... lol |
|
kangarootoo
06/05/08 @ 13:01
0
@RexRunti
It just occurred to me, I wonder if the title CTA sounding a lot like GTA has any bearing at all. They don't say what sort of complaints they received the first time around. Maybe customer confusion was part of the deal? In any event, its not like the they just said no this time. They accepted the advertising and THEn changed their minds, which is probably core to the whole affair. |
|
DanWhitehead
06/05/08 @ 15:04
0
Chances are that selling of ad space is handled by an agency. That agency could have booked the ads, only for the decision to be vetoed later. If they're carrying ads for R-rated movies and violent TV shows then, yes, that's hypocritical - but last time I checked you can't sue for hypocrisy.
|
|
RandomTerrain
06/05/08 @ 19:38
0
GTA 4 doesn't need to be advertised though does it?
Seriously, every gamer knows about it. Oh well, sue them anyway. Why not, eh? |
Comments: 1-26 of 26 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Advertisement
