Retro Gamer Now X-rated

LeeT · Post by **LeeT** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:45 pm

If it meant paying more for RG without those adverts...then keep them in!

retro mania · Post by **retro mania** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:13 pm

LeeT wrote:If it meant paying more for RG without those adverts...then keep them in!

Thats right, also these ad's help imagine publishings suits pay the bills which keeps rg and gameTm on the shelf.

Jonathon Saunders · Post by **Jonathon Saunders** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:14 pm

so LeeT/Retrogamer what you are saying is you condone porn so you can save a few pence in buying retro gamer. Would you feel the same way if the ads were advertising sex lines which contained child porn. Would you think it still ok as long as you could save a few pence in buying retro gamer.

sjstimer · Post by **sjstimer** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:16 pm

Retro Gamer has already ditched cover disks so it must be saving money on those so why does it need to save further and scrape the botton of the barrel and put these ads in.

Dudley · Post by **Dudley** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:31 pm

sjstimer wrote:Retro Gamer has already ditched cover disks so it must be saving money on those so why does it need to save further and scrape the botton of the barrel and put these ads in.

3 points

1)They're not "saving money" on the cover disks, the mag costs Â£1 less without them
2) The Magazine is also 16-32 pages larger than the Live publishing version
3) Live publishing went out of business. What does that tell you.

Of course if you

Don't be censored stupid. One is a legal service doing no real harm, one is one of the top 3 most serious and damaging crimes in existence. Simply by even comparing the two you're more offensive than a "Darran's double page screenshot" sized ad for them.

Oh-well as has been said I'm sure the loop hole will be closed soon seeing as they are already saying that lads mag's (not porn) should be placed on the top shelf and have "modesty" covers placed over them...

Yet Cosmo and Just seventeen are on the bottom shelf. What does that tell you?

Opa-Opa · Post by **Opa-Opa** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:30 pm

Dudley wrote:
Oh-well as has been said I'm sure the loop hole will be closed soon seeing as they are already saying that lads mag's (not porn) should be placed on the top shelf and have "modesty" covers placed over them...
Yet Cosmo and Just seventeen are on the bottom shelf. What does that tell you?

It tells me that although the contents of said magazines may contain sex advice for teenagers and questionable "fashion" articles that show some flesh they dont have tits and arse on the cover..

RG is still no place for porn, if I wanted breasts I would have bought razzle and I would be happy paying an extra 50p to keep my monthly gaming fix censored free, I paid an extra pound for stuff I could have downloaded for free with the old RG after all.

Frank Chickens · Post by **Frank Chickens** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:58 pm

Granted, it's not an ideal situation but if it helps towards the continuation of the magazine then so be it.

rossi46 · Post by **rossi46** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:49 pm

Jonathon Saunders wrote: Hey you must be scottish right

I almost sympathised with your argument until the last bit. I was thinking 'good for you - someone standing up for what they think is right' (however misguided it may be).

Then you go and ruin it with your narrow-minded bigotry.

I didn't expect to see porn in retro gamer, but I far less expected racism on the forum.
It's not necesarry to buy Razzle - you just come in here to see a bunch of tits.

markopoloman · Post by **markopoloman** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 8:51 pm

These ads are in every mag I buy!

PCGamer, PCZONE, PCFORMAT and now RG.

I've got kids - and my 12 yr old son loves reading RG. If my wife were to look through the mag and see that crap, she would insist he didn't read it again. AND I AGREE.

Its fine to sit and write things in defence of these ads - and I can see why some of you do. It brings money to the publisher. Well, how would the publisher feel if the parents stopped buying the mags?

I'm not saying that will happen - I know I will continue buying it, but it still is not right.

BUT compared to the other mags, there are still very few in RG - only 2 porn ones in the latest - but its the other censored. Joke lines.......

YES - my kids would just love the latest jokes! The porn lines cost 10p or 34p per min - the joke lines cost 1.50 per min

Ads are ok if they are to do with the mag content. Why don't new games get advertised? I love retro - but I buy a censored load of new games, and for more than one system!

Come on Imagine - fish for better ads - point out that we are not a bunch of tight rom hunters and get rid of the trash.

SirClive · Post by **SirClive** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:22 am

Good thread.

I am with the majority voicing an opinion and find these ads tastless and mis-placed in an mag for Retro Gamers.

I too would be happy paying a little extra to not have them, but unfortunately I don't think that the silent majority would agree.

I think it is about time that 'lads mags' got sorted out, but that won't do anything about the content inside mags like this. You can see tits in the Sun/Star and they aren't gonna be top shelfers.

Nice to hear Darran's opinion. Many wouldn't want to rock the boat.

Dudley · Post by **Dudley** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:35 am

Opa-Opa wrote:
It tells me that although the contents of said magazines may contain sex advice for teenagers and questionable "fashion" articles that show some flesh they dont have tits and arse on the cover..

You may want to check the list of what Tesco is covering up. They're leaving Cosmo and 17.

They're INCLUDING Stuff and T3.

I would be happy paying an extra 50p to keep my monthly gaming fix censored free

For that economics to work they'd have to be 10 of you for every person who stopped buying it.

I really doubt that's the case.

I almost sympathised with your argument until the last bit. I was thinking 'good for you - someone standing up for what they think is right' (however misguided it may be).

Then you go and ruin it with your narrow-minded bigotry.

Did you not notice where he said child porn is exactly the same as an ad for a sex chatline?

Its fine to sit and write things in defence of these ads - and I can see why some of you do. It brings money to the publisher. Well, how would the publisher feel if the parents stopped buying the mags?

They would make the economic decision. They clearly already have since there were letters in Pc Format about this in 1994-5.

BUT compared to the other mags, there are still very few in RG - only 2 porn ones in the latest - but its the other censored. Joke lines.......

YES - my kids would just love the latest jokes! The porn lines cost 10p or 34p per min - the joke lines cost 1.50 per min

Then it comes down to parental responsibility. Don't ask RG to babysit your kids for you. That's the same reason people try to get decent TV pulled all the time,

--

And sirclive, your opinon is interesting given your sig. (not withstanding the hillarious grammar mistake, it could also be considered degrading)

paranoid marvin · Post by **paranoid marvin** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:50 am

markopoloman wrote:

BUT compared to the other mags, there are still very few in RG - only 2 porn ones in the latest - but its the other censored. Joke lines.......

.

Just the tip of the iceberg
This month 2 ads,next month 2 pages of ads

Opa-Opa · Post by **Opa-Opa** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:29 am

Dudley, Stuff and T3 nearly always have a half naked woman on the front holding a new camara or I-pod thing and there for deserve to be covered up.
You also say that there would need to be ten of me to cover the loss of readers who stop buying the mag because of a small price rise, but where did you get that figure from..? Seems to me it's just a guess for arguments sakes.

Parental responsibility has nothing to do with this discusion. The magazine is not an "adult" magazine and the advertising sales team who know that people from all age groups read this mag should be taking some of the responsibility as well. We as parents try to keep these images away from our children while the people who make money couldn't care less, how is that the parents fault..?

Jonathon Saunders · Post by **Jonathon Saunders** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:59 am

rossi46 wrote:
Jonathon Saunders wrote: Hey you must be scottish right
I almost sympathised with your argument until the last bit. I was thinking 'good for you - someone standing up for what they think is right' (however misguided it may be).

Then you go and ruin it with your narrow-minded bigotry.

.

It was intended as a joke not as a racisit remark for goodnes sake but ive edited it out now and apologise for any offence taken.

Dudley wrote:
Did you not notice where he said child porn is exactly the same as an ad for a sex chatline?

I dont know where you got that impression but perhaps I didnt put it diwn clearly, I was just asking him if he would accept ads containing child porn or links to childporn in the magazine just so he could still save a few pence on the magazine.

I being a member of the NSPCC know exactly that childporn is not the same as ads for sex chatlines but a hell of a lot worse, but if some children were to phone these numbers out of curiosty and listend to people having orgasms e.g. etc on these lines that in itself could be a form of child abuse.

Jonathon Saunders · Post by **Jonathon Saunders** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:09 am

Dudley I would also like to know where you got that figure from too

Retro Gamer forum

Retro Gamer Now X-rated

Re:

Re:

RE:

Re: RE:

Re: RE:

Re:

Re: RE:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Who is online