Retro Gamer Now X-rated

Want to air your opinions on the latest issue of Retro Gamer? Step inside...

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

Locked
User avatar
sparky
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:48 am
Location: Northamptonshire
Contact:

Re:

Post by sparky » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:13 pm

Weblaus wrote:
sparky wrote:No, it's the parents responsibilty to teach their children 'responsibility' :?
I don't see where I'm saying anything different. Putting blinders on kids until they're 18 doesn't strike me as the right kind of responsibility either, that's true.
Right, I'm off to take my 3 & 5 year olds to a porn convention. It's amazing what you'll find down the grandparents.
If I'm supposed to understand this, you need to explain it more clearly, otherwise I guess my grasp of the English language isn't good enough to cath the finer nuances.

Reading it the way I understand it, it certainly doesn't make sense. Kids of 3 and 5 years most likely can't read, therefore no point in complaining about the content of the ads, and likening these ads to porn simply is a joke to me.. by the way, were sales of the infamous tabloids with the page 3 girls ever age-restricted?
I was being facetious.
Image

User avatar
retro mania
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:39 am
Location: peterborough

Post by retro mania » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:17 pm

Come on lets keep this in perspective we are talking about to small ad's at the back of the mag not a spread eagle centre fold. I don't no how much more political correctness I can take.

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8712
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:04 pm

The live Retrogamer didn't have sex chatline ads. But I've just checked issues 13 and 18 and found ads for sexually explicit mobile games via premium rate numbers.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
Darran@Retro Gamer
Posts: 6771
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:34 am
Location: Bournemouth
Contact:

Post by Darran@Retro Gamer » Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:08 pm

I've had a look at the two ads in the back of the mag, and they really are quite tame, especially after the way some of you have been going on about them (you're not mirror readers by any chance...)

Wait until you seen ads like Anal Action, Mature Maureen, I'll make you come in 20 seconds and let me drink down every last drop. Then you've got something to really moan about. (and no, I'm not suggesting that they are in the next issue).

While I can appreciate that some children do read Retro Gamer, it's readership is aged at the 25+l so while I don't agree with the ads, they aren't as unappropriately placed as some people think.

Yes, the ads are annoying, but it's a very small (hopefully smaller if I have my way) part of the magazine. It's the equivalent of when you see a PG film and someone says censored in it.
Last edited by Darran@Retro Gamer on Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Darran@Retro Gamer
Posts: 6771
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:34 am
Location: Bournemouth
Contact:

Re:

Post by Darran@Retro Gamer » Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:25 pm

Crunchy wrote:
Each to his own beliefs though Dudley.
Of course, being a bit of an arsehole you probably can't comprehend that.
Don't come on the forum to wind up other members Crunchy. There's no need to be like that. Do you personally know Dudley?
Image

User avatar
mel the bell
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:42 am
Location: near whitby
Contact:

Re:

Post by mel the bell » Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:34 pm

Dudley wrote:The live Retrogamer didn't have sex chatline ads. But I've just checked issues 13 and 18 and found ads for sexually explicit mobile games via premium rate numbers.
those ads are everywhere now
its the way of the world, march of the advertisers

titty wallpapers and stuff for yer mobile
On 2003-12-08 20:15, cyborg wrote:
You're all corporate bitches if you buy a console - face it. Unless it's a Phantom - in that case you're just stupid - because even if it did exist it'd be crap

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8712
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Re:

Post by Dudley » Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:47 pm

Darran@Retro Gamer wrote: Don't come on the forum to wind up other members Crunchy. There's no need to be like that. Do you personally know Dudley?
He doesn't. In fact I'm not even sure what prompted that statement given how anti my position in the thread it was.
those ads are everywhere now
its the way of the world, march of the advertisers

titty wallpapers and stuff for yer mobile
Well indeed, the only point I was making there was that there was equal (and quite frankly "worse") in the Live version. Both the ones I mention were large parts of full page ads in the 2 issues I randomly picked.

Was this ever brought up over on live's forum?
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
sparky
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:48 am
Location: Northamptonshire
Contact:

Re:

Post by sparky » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:46 am

Darran@Retro Gamer wrote:I've had a look at the two ads in the back of the mag, and they really are quite tame, especially after the way some of you have been going on about them (you're not mirror readers by any chance...)
.

Surely the arguement about all this is whether they have a justified reason for being in the magazine in the first place, regardless of whether the content is tame or not, about who is or who isn't responsible enough to act on them, they're nothing to do with gaming.

I'm sure there's an agegroup where questions will be asked because they don't understand the content, those who just call the numbers out of curiosity and those who can idlely browse past them.

I don't have a problem with them, I have children that are not of an age to wonder about this sort of stuff yet but I certainly appreciate the morale implications of adverts like this.
Image

User avatar
paranoid marvin
Posts: 14272
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: 21st Century Earth

Post by paranoid marvin » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:58 am

Perhaps they 'chat' about retro-gaming? :wink:
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8712
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Re:

Post by Dudley » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:10 am

sparky wrote: Surely the arguement about all this is whether they have a justified reason for being in the magazine in the first place, regardless of whether the content is tame or not, about who is or who isn't responsible enough to act on them, they're nothing to do with gaming.
The "justified reason" is that they're a paid ad for an entirely legal product and break no publishing guidelines with their content.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
sparky
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:48 am
Location: Northamptonshire
Contact:

Re:

Post by sparky » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:00 am

Dudley wrote:
sparky wrote: Surely the arguement about all this is whether they have a justified reason for being in the magazine in the first place, regardless of whether the content is tame or not, about who is or who isn't responsible enough to act on them, they're nothing to do with gaming.
The "justified reason" is that they're a paid ad for an entirely legal product and break no publishing guidelines with their content.
That's a justified reason then, not 'The' justified reason. The point I was making was whether they needed to be in the mag. There's plenty of publications out there that manage to survive without this type of advert. And let's not start talking about the niche size of RG reader and circulation counts.
Image

User avatar
Darran@Retro Gamer
Posts: 6771
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:34 am
Location: Bournemouth
Contact:

Re:

Post by Darran@Retro Gamer » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:17 am

sparky wrote:

That's a justified reason then, not 'The' justified reason. The point I was making was whether they needed to be in the mag. There's plenty of publications out there that manage to survive without this type of advert. And let's not start talking about the niche size of RG reader and circulation counts.
Everyone (inluding myself) is well aware that they don't need to be in the mag. They are cheap, give people the wrong impression about the magazine, and obviously upset people.

We had exactly the same issue at gamesTM. Every month we were guarenteed that the ads had been taken out, and every month they remained in there.

I will certainly discuss the matter when I'm back in work tomorrow, but that's all I can do.
Image

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8712
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Re:

Post by Dudley » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:19 am

sparky wrote:
Dudley wrote:
sparky wrote: Surely the arguement about all this is whether they have a justified reason for being in the magazine in the first place, regardless of whether the content is tame or not, about who is or who isn't responsible enough to act on them, they're nothing to do with gaming.
The "justified reason" is that they're a paid ad for an entirely legal product and break no publishing guidelines with their content.
That's a justified reason then, not 'The' justified reason. The point I was making was whether they needed to be in the mag. There's plenty of publications out there that manage to survive without this type of advert. And let's not start talking about the niche size of RG reader and circulation counts.
RG survives without adverts for cars too. Perhaps we should ask What Car to do the same.

If the operators of these services feel RG buyers are within their target demographic then that's the justified reason for them wanting to advertise.

I've already covered the reason RG would accept them, they have absolutely no reason not to.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
Opa-Opa
Posts: 4304
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re:

Post by Opa-Opa » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:28 am

Dudley wrote:I've already covered the reason RG would accept them, they have absolutely no reason not to.
You mean apart from the fact that more than a few of us find them out of place and offence.. Is that not a reason then..?

User avatar
paranoid marvin
Posts: 14272
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: 21st Century Earth

Re:

Post by paranoid marvin » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:33 am

[quote="Dudley"]

If the operators of these services feel RG buyers are within their target demographic then that's the justified reason for them wanting to advertise.



I think this could make a topic on it's own
Why do these people assume that people who like playing video games
are in their target demographic audience?
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests