Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

234 Comments

The Story Behind Phone Story, Apple's Latest App Store Ban

Paolo Pedercini's sharp critique of Apple and modern tech consumerism was approved before it was banned.

No Caption Provided

Apple approved Phone Story for sale in its App Store last Friday. The application's developer, Molleindustria, decided to be patient and prepare a formal announcement for the week after. Just before noon, only hours prior to the official news going out, Phone Story was taken down. As of this writing, it's still not available in the App Store.

Phone Story is not a traditional piece of software. It's a game and interactive statement, using the attraction of game mechanics to pull players into a charged narrative that has a very specific message to convey. Phone Story wants to remind users about the impact their love of electronic devices and how an obsession with The New Thing has consequences around the world.

Phone Story is split into four mini-games. First, you're directing soldiers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to maintain an efficient workforce of children extracting the resources needed for the devices we love. In another, you're directing a grounded safety net around to catch assembly line workers from committing suicide, a commentary on the ongoing tragedies at factories abroad, such as Foxconn. In the third mini-game, you're an "Apple" employee tossing devices at hungry, mindless customers. The final game invokes the dirty process of recycling discarded devices, as different iDevice pieces come down the screen.

A narrator is present throughout the entire experience, putting the mini-games in context.

Paolo Pedercini intended to make a statement, but Apple's content guidelines are not very clear.
Paolo Pedercini intended to make a statement, but Apple's content guidelines are not very clear.

30-year-old Pittsburgh, PA resident Paolo Pedercini is the creator of Phone Story, a designer unafraid to shock you--but doesn't come across as someone merely hoping to shock. He also wants you to listen.

When I first emailed Pedercini, I asked the obvious question: didn't you know this would happen?

"I'm very familiar with the app store policy and the game is designed to be compliant with it," he said. "If the project was just about being censored we could have gone further. [...] If you check the guidelines, Phone Story doesn't really violate any rule except for the generic 'excessively objectionable and crude content' and maybe the 'depiction of abuse of children.' Yes, there's dark humor and violence but it's cartoonish and stylized--way more mellow than a lot of other games on the App Store."

Pedercini wouldn't expand on Phone Story might have changed if he'd purposely gone "further," but to underscore his provocateur nature, Pedercini told me about an application he had been mulling over. It's...explicit.

"A similar project that I was planning to distribute only to jailbroken devices," he said, "involved a dominatrix talking vagina the user was supposed to lick regularly (little known fact: touch screens work with your tongue) like a virtual pet for phone fetishists."

Like I said: provocateur.

Players click/touch the children who decide to take a break from mining more materials.
Players click/touch the children who decide to take a break from mining more materials.

Pedercini received a phone call from an Apple employee named Richard when Phone Story was removed. The employee was open to a discussion, but their conversation didn't last very long. Pedercini was told his application had been removed for violating the following guidelines:

  • 15.2 Apps that depict violence or abuse of children will be rejected
  • 16.1 Apps that present excessively objectionable or crude content will be rejected
  • 21.1 Apps that include the ability to make donations to recognized charitable organizations must be free
  • 21.2 The collection of donations must be done via a web site in Safari or an SMS

Phone Story does not solicit donations through the application--that would be handled when profits came in from sales. Since Phone Story has been removed, it's unclear whether that will happen with its iOS release, as Pedercini isn't clear how many people were able to purchase the application before it was pulled down. 15.2 provides the biggest issue for Pedercini, as his depiction is front and center in Phone Story, and while he may disagree with Apple's interpretation, the App Store is curated.

"We are considering to make an app that uses broad metaphors to address the same issues," he said. "That's what directors used to do during McCarthyism and artists used to under totalitarian regimes. In an Apple-controlled technological world, where computers are replaced by dumb tablets, we'll have to resume strategies from the dark times of our history."

If you have an Android phone, you don't have to wait, as the application is now available there. I played Phone Story on my Mac and not my iPhone, thanks to a version he provided me. It's unclear if what I played will be released.

Suicide nets were installed at Foxconn facilities following a large number of employee suicides.
Suicide nets were installed at Foxconn facilities following a large number of employee suicides.

The App Store is familiar to this kind of controversy. Now former Apple CEO Steve Jobs' personal stance, which defines Apple, has been clear on pornography, but when it comes to satire, politics and social commentary, where the line should be drawn hasn't been clear.

Pulitzer winner cartoonist Mark Fiore had his application pulled for poking fun at political figures. Media outrage prompted Apple to allow it back. Such decisions come on a case-by-case basis, however, and small, independent developers like Pedercini have little way of fighting back.

"I own an iPhone and I've been following all of the issues addressed in the game--things that make me uncomfortable as a consumer and as software developer," he said. "Since the App Store [opened] people kept asking me: 'Why don't you make a game for iPhone?' and I had to talk for a while about what I think is wrong in this Apple-complex. This game is basically the answer to that simple question."

Even though Phone Story is available on Android, don't assume that's explicit approval of Google, either. Pedercini has his own concerns there, but for now, pivoting there is his only option to respond quickly.

"I'd be much happier if the game was actually available to everybody and possibly generating discussions around the issues it addresses instead of creating even more debate around the controversial App Store policies," he said.

More information on Pedercini's concerns about modern consumerism, its effects on the world, proposed solutions to the problem and what you can do to influence the cause one way or the other can be found at Phone Story's website.

Patrick Klepek on Google+

234 Comments

Avatar image for mudman
MudMan

1423

Forum Posts

300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Edited By MudMan

@Deathpooky said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@Dry_Carton said:

@NoelVeiga: Weak? They aren't weak. They are not controversial though. Talking about these things shouldn't be (and isn't) tabu. A company with nothing to hide would not have banned this game.

No, wait, the issues are perfectly valid. The fact that most western smartphones and consoles go through basically a hi-tech sweatshop is shameful, and reminiscent of last decade's Nike woes with child labour. That's not the problem I have with his statement.

The problem is that it's presented in a disingenuous, demagogic way that criminalizes consumers (which he totally is as well, by the way) and consumerism for what is basically a policy and regulation issue. Yes, third world labour is a worldwide issue. No, you don't fix the damn issue by not buying an iPhone. You fix it by voting for the guys that will set regulation helping prevent this crap and stabilize third world regimes.

If he wants to make a political statement, he should make a good one. Doesn't mean I like him being censored by a private company, though. That's utter bullshit. See, the fact that one party is wrong in a situation doesn't make the other right. We get all manichean at times and forget, especially on the Internet. That's a bad thing.

I agree that criminalizing the consumer isn't warranted, but to say that the only way to fix it is voting for guys to fix it, and that "not buying an iPhone" won't fix it is exonerating people far too much. You make a decision about where you spend your money, and that in turn affects how companies make their products. You can bet if people stopped buying iPhones or any other product en masse because of labor issues that Apple or any other company with business sense would solve the problem a lot faster than the government could (to the extent that first world governments can really do that much about horrific third world labor conditions).

Off the top of my head, humanely raised meat, conflict-free diamonds, and dolphin-free tuna are a few rather successful sub-areas of an industry that have arisen because of consumer demand for product that doesn't have moral problems associated with how it got to you.

Nah, "humanely raised meat" and the others are just examples of corporations working on developing USPs and trying to score PR victories that have a larger impact than their cost in allowing them to either raise prices or to target a niche market. They make them because you are willing to buy those things, not because you're unwilling to buy the others.

In other words, non humanely raised meat is doing just fine, thank you very much, it's just that charging you a little bit more for the "humane" turned out to be a valid business proposition for somebody, just like soap operas continue to exist despite people making money by doing Dexter.

See my point?

If you want to prevent some of that bullshit from happening, that's a change that needs to come from above, and it's not a change you can vote with your wallet to make. Sure, somebody can pop up with a clean rap sheet and carve a niche for themselves to the point of becoming a market leader, like Google, Apple or Minecraft, but sooner or later there's a privacy scandal or a censorship scandal or an ugly lawsuit or a raw materials controversy. Putting your money on feel good products (or nowhere at all if, as is the case in smartphones there is no "clean" option) is just that, a feel good tactic. It makes you feel less guilty and it changes nothing, except for the people directly affected by the boutique business you've chosen to support with your feel good products paid at a premium.

To be clear, none of that is a bad thing. It's just that we shouldn't delude ourselves and think that our work as citizens or consumers is done because we buy free range chicken eggs. If there is room for abuse somewhere, the way to block that is to regulate the field and enforce the regulation. In the case of the international labour market, there's a lot of work to be done worldwide, and not buying an iPhone isn't even a first step towards it.

EDIT: Also, where do you draw the line? Which products are hurting the world little enough that you're willing to take that? There's this great Louie CK joke that goes "“I drive an Infiniti. That’s really evil. There are people who just starve to death – that’s all they ever did. There’s people who are like, born and they go ‘Uh, I’m hungry’ then they just die, and that’s all they ever got to do. Meanwhile I’m driving in my car [kicking back music blaring] having a great time, and I sleep like a baby. It’s totally my fault, ’cause I could trade my Infiniti for a [less luxurious] car… and I’d get back like $20,000. And I could save hundreds of people from dying of starvation with that money. And everyday I don’t do it. Everyday I make them die with my car.”

That is true of every single thing you own. So tell me, if you have to vote with your wallet on every pair of jeans, what do you do? Walk around naked and live in a barrel? Isn't it easier to regulate stuff so you can purchase your shit knowing it's not, you know, killing hungry children?

Avatar image for dry_carton
Dry_Carton

84

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dry_Carton

@NoelVeiga said:

@Dry_Carton said:

@NoelVeiga: Weak? They aren't weak. They are not controversial though. Talking about these things shouldn't be (and isn't) tabu. A company with nothing to hide would not have banned this game.

No, wait, the issues are perfectly valid. The fact that most western smartphones and consoles go through basically a hi-tech sweatshop is shameful, and reminiscent of last decade's Nike woes with child labour. That's not the problem I have with his statement.

The problem is that it's presented in a disingenuous, demagogic way that criminalizes consumers (which he totally is as well, by the way) and consumerism for what is basically a policy and regulation issue. Yes, third world labour is a worldwide issue. No, you don't fix the damn issue by not buying an iPhone. You fix it by voting for the guys that will set regulation helping prevent this crap and stabilize third world regimes.

If he wants to make a political statement, he should make a good one. Doesn't mean I like him being censored by a private company, though. That's utter bullshit. See, the fact that one party is wrong in a situation doesn't make the other right. We get all manichean at times and forget, especially on the Internet. That's a bad thing.

A disingenuous, demagogic app that criminalizes consumers? I don't know how you interpreted this game, but I thought it was really funny. Like one of those political cartoons the article mentioned, but more of a "practical joke" than a cartoon. And the joke's on Apple. Apple doesn't like it, and bans the app, which just adds more to it.

Avatar image for skald
Skald

4450

Forum Posts

621

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 7

Edited By Skald

@wickedsc3 said:

Stories like these are why I'm glad I've never given Apple a dime of my money! Hope you get this game out there man!

Yes, because I'm sure your cellphone, your computer, your clothes and your shoes were all made by moderately wealthy, middle-class Americans.

This isn't an Apple specific problem. This is much, much bigger than just that.

Avatar image for insectecutor
Insectecutor

1264

Forum Posts

217

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

Edited By Insectecutor

@wickedsc3 said:

Stories like these are why I'm glad I've never given Apple a dime of my money! Hope you get this game out there man!

You've probably given Foxconn many dimes of your money though, so boycotting only one of their larger clients won't do a whole lot of good. Give up HP, Dell and Sony too. Oh and Microsoft. And Nintendo.

Avatar image for paul_tillich
Paul_Tillich

358

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paul_Tillich

@wickedsc3: At least you are aware. For that, I applaud you.

Avatar image for mudman
MudMan

1423

Forum Posts

300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Edited By MudMan

@Dry_Carton said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@Dry_Carton said:

@NoelVeiga: Weak? They aren't weak. They are not controversial though. Talking about these things shouldn't be (and isn't) tabu. A company with nothing to hide would not have banned this game.

No, wait, the issues are perfectly valid. The fact that most western smartphones and consoles go through basically a hi-tech sweatshop is shameful, and reminiscent of last decade's Nike woes with child labour. That's not the problem I have with his statement.

The problem is that it's presented in a disingenuous, demagogic way that criminalizes consumers (which he totally is as well, by the way) and consumerism for what is basically a policy and regulation issue. Yes, third world labour is a worldwide issue. No, you don't fix the damn issue by not buying an iPhone. You fix it by voting for the guys that will set regulation helping prevent this crap and stabilize third world regimes.

If he wants to make a political statement, he should make a good one. Doesn't mean I like him being censored by a private company, though. That's utter bullshit. See, the fact that one party is wrong in a situation doesn't make the other right. We get all manichean at times and forget, especially on the Internet. That's a bad thing.

A disingenuous, demagogic app that criminalizes consumers? I don't know how you interpreted this game, but I thought it was really funny. Like one of those political cartoons the article mentioned, but more of a "practical joke" than a cartoon. And the joke's on Apple. Apple doesn't like it, and bans the app, which just adds more to it.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but it's also a joke told in a very patronizing way that is calling you out on something over which you have no control. It may just be trolling but, then again, it IS trolling.

Avatar image for deactivated-64e53fe8174f3
deactivated-64e53fe8174f3

83

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

A little tangent off the main issue at hand but. I don't like the name, this controversy kind of tarnishes the name of the very enjoyable < something > Story games by Kairosoft.

Avatar image for spekingur
spekingur

174

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By spekingur

@BrockNRolla said:

@Spekingur said:

@BrockNRolla said:

I'm definitely on the side of freedom of expression, but did he really think this app was going to stick around the store? You aren't going to walk into Walmart and buy a shirt with writing that says, "We underpay our workers at Walmart!"

This is a store curating their own materials, and whether or not you agree with that, it's their right as a private business.

It's not a freedom of expression if a corporation can control what is expressed.

Business's have a right to run their business as they so choose. You can't paint your next-door neighbor's house because you're expressing yourself. People still have rights on their private property.

I think Apple should be careful though, because they could be on a slippery slope in stifling the creativity to be found on the app store.

If you believe in freedom of expression then you believe in it, not just parts of it that are convenient to you at any given moment.

And you can paint the door of your neighbour. The option to do so is there. Your neighbour might not like it and he might call the police - he might even express his fist in your face.

Avatar image for wickedsc3
wickedsc3

1044

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By wickedsc3

@extremeradical said:

@wickedsc3 said:

Stories like these are why I'm glad I've never given Apple a dime of my money! Hope you get this game out there man!

Yes, because I'm sure your cellphone, your computer, your clothes and your shoes were all made by moderately wealthy, middle-class Americans.

This isn't an Apple specific problem. This is much, much bigger than just that.

Never said it was just apples problem. But this is an apple article, im not going to go off topic and talk about my clothes. Bottom line I don't like Apple so I don't buy them. All my clothes are from large corporations and I gladly give them my money, hell I drive a foreign car and gladly paid a lot of money for it. But i don't like apple.

Avatar image for wickedsc3
wickedsc3

1044

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By wickedsc3

@Insectecutor said:

@wickedsc3 said:

Stories like these are why I'm glad I've never given Apple a dime of my money! Hope you get this game out there man!

You've probably given Foxconn many dimes of your money though, so boycotting only one of their larger clients won't do a whole lot of good. Give up HP, Dell and Sony too. Oh and Microsoft. And Nintendo.

I'm not trying to bankrupt apple with my tiny sales. I just don't like the Apple Corp. so I don't give them any of my money simple as that. I gladly give Microsoft, HP, and Sony (maybe all I have that I know of is a PS2), a lot of my money. I'm not boycotting at all just not purchasing from them as I don't like their products.

Avatar image for brocknrolla
BrockNRolla

1741

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By BrockNRolla

@NoelVeiga said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@Dry_Carton said:

@NoelVeiga: Weak? They aren't weak. They are not controversial though. Talking about these things shouldn't be (and isn't) tabu. A company with nothing to hide would not have banned this game.

No, wait, the issues are perfectly valid. The fact that most western smartphones and consoles go through basically a hi-tech sweatshop is shameful, and reminiscent of last decade's Nike woes with child labour. That's not the problem I have with his statement.

The problem is that it's presented in a disingenuous, demagogic way that criminalizes consumers (which he totally is as well, by the way) and consumerism for what is basically a policy and regulation issue. Yes, third world labour is a worldwide issue. No, you don't fix the damn issue by not buying an iPhone. You fix it by voting for the guys that will set regulation helping prevent this crap and stabilize third world regimes.

If he wants to make a political statement, he should make a good one. Doesn't mean I like him being censored by a private company, though. That's utter bullshit. See, the fact that one party is wrong in a situation doesn't make the other right. We get all manichean at times and forget, especially on the Internet. That's a bad thing.

I mostly agree with you. A political will needs to exist among effected people to fix problems like this in China and in other parts of the world. His message may be a bit off, but give the guy credit for trying to bring attention to an injustice he sees.

I don't think the company censoring their store is "utter bullshit" though. If it were your store, you would want the right to curate the content found there too.

Their right isn't into question. The convenience, democratic spirit and morality of it, though...

I mean, I do have a right to do many obnoxious things I don't do all the time. People spout this "it's their right" stuff in these discussions as if the moral stance on any situation was to take every possible advantage for yourself regardless of the long term ramifications or the impact on other people.

But, even if you're going to play it on a pure law of the jungle perspective, it's still a clumsy move by Apple about an app that would have gone totally unnoticed otherwise and is now getting free publicity. It's immoral, it raises questions about the convenience of supporting Apple's closed system and it's counterproductive to Apple's interests, which makes it stupid. Hence "utter bullshit".

Like I said, a lot of people are too obsessed with these dualistic views. Either I have the right or I don't. If I have the right, then I should do it. If I don't have the right, then I shouldn't. If Apple is wrong, the other guy is right. If the guy is wrong, Apple is right. In fact, it's often "If I agree with the guy's message, Apple is morally wrong. If I disagree, they are right". This whole situation hasn't concerned me as much because of terrible work conditions in the third world or because of Apple's shady content control tactics, but because it exposes the immaturity of the public opinion, especially on tech and gaming websites.

I'm not saying opinion is invalid. I do think though that exercising your rights often does carry with it a moral weight. Apple has a right to curate their store, and in doing so, may well suppress someone's freedom of expression, a right which I certainly hold dear. It may well seem immoral to some. If it were my store, I wouldn't have banned it. Yet I'm certain I would appreciate my right to control the store and feel a moral righteousness were I to ban, say an application that aggregated child pornography sites for consumption. Having a "right" to something should imply a moral reason for such a right. Whether or not Apple is exercising their morally based right for "moral" reasons though is entirely up for debate.

But having a right to do something is not typically "utter bullshit." We protect rights because we believe they have some kind of inherent value; moral or otherwise. People often use freedom of speech in terribly disgusting, irresponsible, and even immoral ways. Nevertheless, I think the importance of the "right" transcends the moral implications.

I will heartily agree with you though in that much commentary found on the internet is dualistic. "I agree with what they did, and therefore they are right," is not a logical conclusion.

Avatar image for paul_tillich
Paul_Tillich

358

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paul_Tillich

This stream of comments is making me rethink this community. In summary: "Me no like challenges, make me think. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Avatar image for brocknrolla
BrockNRolla

1741

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By BrockNRolla

@Spekingur said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Spekingur said:

@BrockNRolla said:

I'm definitely on the side of freedom of expression, but did he really think this app was going to stick around the store? You aren't going to walk into Walmart and buy a shirt with writing that says, "We underpay our workers at Walmart!"

This is a store curating their own materials, and whether or not you agree with that, it's their right as a private business.

It's not a freedom of expression if a corporation can control what is expressed.

Business's have a right to run their business as they so choose. You can't paint your next-door neighbor's house because you're expressing yourself. People still have rights on their private property.

I think Apple should be careful though, because they could be on a slippery slope in stifling the creativity to be found on the app store.

If you believe in freedom of expression then you believe in it, not just parts of it that are convenient to you at any given moment.

And you can paint the door of your neighbour. The option to do so is there. Your neighbour might not like it and he might call the police - he might even express his fist in your face.

I believe that it is my right to believe what I choose what I believe. The right to freedom of expression is essential, but I don't believe you should be allowed to deprive others of their rights in order to impose your own.

Alas, that is the distinct difference between figures like Malcolm-X and Martin Luther King Jr. One believed in a right to impose your rights no matter what the cost, and the other believed you must find a way to express your rights without quashing others. I'm a believer in the later, but that doesn't mean your opinion isn't similarly relevant. Just know that there is more than one way of looking at it.

Avatar image for dry_carton
Dry_Carton

84

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dry_Carton

@NoelVeiga said:

@Dry_Carton said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@Dry_Carton said:

@NoelVeiga: Weak? They aren't weak. They are not controversial though. Talking about these things shouldn't be (and isn't) tabu. A company with nothing to hide would not have banned this game.

No, wait, the issues are perfectly valid. The fact that most western smartphones and consoles go through basically a hi-tech sweatshop is shameful, and reminiscent of last decade's Nike woes with child labour. That's not the problem I have with his statement.

The problem is that it's presented in a disingenuous, demagogic way that criminalizes consumers (which he totally is as well, by the way) and consumerism for what is basically a policy and regulation issue. Yes, third world labour is a worldwide issue. No, you don't fix the damn issue by not buying an iPhone. You fix it by voting for the guys that will set regulation helping prevent this crap and stabilize third world regimes.

If he wants to make a political statement, he should make a good one. Doesn't mean I like him being censored by a private company, though. That's utter bullshit. See, the fact that one party is wrong in a situation doesn't make the other right. We get all manichean at times and forget, especially on the Internet. That's a bad thing.

A disingenuous, demagogic app that criminalizes consumers? I don't know how you interpreted this game, but I thought it was really funny. Like one of those political cartoons the article mentioned, but more of a "practical joke" than a cartoon. And the joke's on Apple. Apple doesn't like it, and bans the app, which just adds more to it.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but it's also a joke told in a very patronizing way that is calling you out on something over which you have no control. It may just be trolling but, then again, it IS trolling.

@NoelVeiga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC4FnfNKwUo

Avatar image for mudman
MudMan

1423

Forum Posts

300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Edited By MudMan

@BrockNRolla said:

@NoelVeiga said:

Their right isn't into question. The convenience, democratic spirit and morality of it, though...

I mean, I do have a right to do many obnoxious things I don't do all the time. People spout this "it's their right" stuff in these discussions as if the moral stance on any situation was to take every possible advantage for yourself regardless of the long term ramifications or the impact on other people.

But, even if you're going to play it on a pure law of the jungle perspective, it's still a clumsy move by Apple about an app that would have gone totally unnoticed otherwise and is now getting free publicity. It's immoral, it raises questions about the convenience of supporting Apple's closed system and it's counterproductive to Apple's interests, which makes it stupid. Hence "utter bullshit".

Like I said, a lot of people are too obsessed with these dualistic views. Either I have the right or I don't. If I have the right, then I should do it. If I don't have the right, then I shouldn't. If Apple is wrong, the other guy is right. If the guy is wrong, Apple is right. In fact, it's often "If I agree with the guy's message, Apple is morally wrong. If I disagree, they are right". This whole situation hasn't concerned me as much because of terrible work conditions in the third world or because of Apple's shady content control tactics, but because it exposes the immaturity of the public opinion, especially on tech and gaming websites.

I'm not saying opinion is invalid. I do think though that exercising your rights often does carry with it a moral weight. Apple has a right to curate their store, and in doing so, may well suppress someone's freedom of expression, a right which I certainly hold dear. It may well seem immoral to some. If it were my store, I wouldn't have banned it. Yet I'm certain I would appreciate my right to control the store and feel a moral righteousness were I to ban, say an application that aggregated child pornography sites for consumption. Having a "right" to something should imply a moral reason for such a right. Whether or not Apple is exercising their morally based right for "moral" reasons though is entirely up for debate.

But having a right to do something is not typically "utter bullshit." We protect rights because we believe they have some kind of inherent value; moral or otherwise. People often use freedom of speech in terribly disgusting, irresponsible, and even immoral ways. Nevertheless, I think the importance of the "right" transcends the moral implications.

I will heartily agree with you though in you though at much commentary found on the internet is dualistic. "I agree with what they did, and therefore they are right," is not a logical conclusion.

And that's why I present this as a moral issue, not a legal issue. If they had banned an aggregator of child porn... well, that software would probably be illegal anyway, but still, we wouldn't be discussing this. Because on the moral sphere, that ban is appropriate. Banning this software because it's bad PR for them in a platform that is a medium for creative expression for artists, though is bullshit. As in "it's a morally indefensible position by a corporate agent over an act of expression by an individual that they just happen to be able to legally curtail".

Also, and this may be getting a bit too technical for the venue, I suggest not mistaking the right for the articulation of it. Granted, there is an inherent value that is protected with property rights, which is ultimately what Apple is exercising here in regards to their app store, but when you see the app store as a public communications medium that is a majority controller of what ammounts to a duopoly over a mass communications medium, there are more relevant rights than property at stake, and free speech is one of them. There's a reason why many countries limit the amount of newspapers or TV networks a single corporation can own, and this kind of crap is it. Apple may not be in that much of a position of power yet, but them pulling this sort of thing suggests that if they were to be, they'd need to be limited in their ability to curate, as you put it, the content in their store.

Avatar image for raviolisumo
raviolisumo

2263

Forum Posts

243

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By raviolisumo

Don't see the controversy. It was a game bashing apple that ended up on apple devices. I'd take that down too if I was them.

Avatar image for paul_tillich
Paul_Tillich

358

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paul_Tillich

90% of you are without a clue and need to go to school to learn how the world outside the internet works...

Avatar image for paul_tillich
Paul_Tillich

358

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paul_Tillich

@Wes899 said:

Don't see the controversy. It was a game bashing apple that ended up on apple devices. I'd take that down too if I was them.

Correction: It was NOT blasting Apple. It was critical of consumerism and trying to raise awareness of the price paid for the everyday joys we take for granted.

Avatar image for philipduck
PhilipDuck

809

Forum Posts

19

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By PhilipDuck

Another great article from Patrick! Interesting stuff.

Avatar image for mudman
MudMan

1423

Forum Posts

300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Edited By MudMan

@Dry_Carton said:

@NoelVeiga said:

don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but it's also a joke told in a very patronizing way that is calling you out on something over which you have no control. It may just be trolling but, then again, it IS trolling.

@NoelVeiga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC4FnfNKwUo

Hah. I just quoted that same bit from Louie as the same joke done right. See, the difference is that Louie CK isn't pretending to be the innocent whistle blower while you've been an accomplice all along. Instead, he's pointing out that life's unfair and you are making it like that just by existing. Which is cool. That's true. I like it. People should notice that more.

Like I said before, if we were more aware of what he's talking about there, maybe we would start forcing politicians and governments to fix this where it can actually be fixed, rather than enduring some pseudointellectual game developer telling me that I am killing babies by having a smartphone. I already know that. I just can't fix it without moving to China and risking my life as a political activist. And frankly, I don't care about the dead people quite enough to do that. I'll go as far as maybe paying more taxes and only being able to afford a slightly less huge TV by voting for a guy that will help make third world labour a bit less shitty and, by extension, my smartphone a bit more expensive.

Avatar image for phished0ne
Phished0ne

2969

Forum Posts

1841

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Edited By Phished0ne

" Idevices wont use flash because it's not an open platform"

-Steve Jobs

@thetenthdoctor said:

Unless this guy doesn't own a single piece of electronics (which is impossible, since he had to make the game on something) he's a raging hypocrite.

"Ooh, look how edgy I am by getting down on the smartphone all my hipster friends love!"

News flash, mister provocateur: Just about everything you own, from the trendy hoodie and jeans to your computer, was made affordable thanks to someone with a shitty job and wages making it.

Did you call Suda a hypocrite for making No More Heros?

Avatar image for drsnaqrite
DrSnaqrite

39

Forum Posts

8

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By DrSnaqrite

@SSully said:

@DrSnaqrite: My point about saying how long it took him to do this is more about why I dont think he deserves money for this. I assume he did this in his spare time as a personal project, both to get a message across and to work on something he is passionate about. It is just something, especially in a digital age, that benefits more from being free then paid. He could spread his message around better by making this a free app, and after it is all over give people the option to donate to causes against the acts depicted in the game. Also just because I dont feel he deserves to be paid for such an app doesn't mean I do not support artists. I pay for all of my music, movies, books, and games, and whenever possible I buy directly from them, even if it costs me more money because I am all for supporting people for their work.

I didn't mean to imply you don't usually pay for art, I just don't get how "he did in in his spare time over the course of a money" logically turns in to "he doesn't deserve money for it." If someone builds boats in their spare time, and then decides to make them available to others, should people not pay for that? I would agree that purely for the benefit of spreading the message as far as possible, it being free would help, but no artist is required to give away their art for free simply because it contains a message.

Avatar image for paul_tillich
Paul_Tillich

358

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paul_Tillich

The hyperbole here is fascinating and extreme. New facts would not be facts if they did not shock you. That is the nature of the world. When something new bumps into you what is needed is exploration and reasoning, not disgust because it is not like what you know. The alternative universe is one in which we are all frozen and know nothing but the present moment, never progressing and achieving something new and good.

Avatar image for kanerobot
KaneRobot

2802

Forum Posts

2656

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 9

Edited By KaneRobot

I'm torn between my disdain for Apple and my disdain for this bleeding heart game with a "message."

Avatar image for brocknrolla
BrockNRolla

1741

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By BrockNRolla

@NoelVeiga said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@NoelVeiga said:

Their right isn't into question. The convenience, democratic spirit and morality of it, though...

I mean, I do have a right to do many obnoxious things I don't do all the time. People spout this "it's their right" stuff in these discussions as if the moral stance on any situation was to take every possible advantage for yourself regardless of the long term ramifications or the impact on other people.

But, even if you're going to play it on a pure law of the jungle perspective, it's still a clumsy move by Apple about an app that would have gone totally unnoticed otherwise and is now getting free publicity. It's immoral, it raises questions about the convenience of supporting Apple's closed system and it's counterproductive to Apple's interests, which makes it stupid. Hence "utter bullshit".

Like I said, a lot of people are too obsessed with these dualistic views. Either I have the right or I don't. If I have the right, then I should do it. If I don't have the right, then I shouldn't. If Apple is wrong, the other guy is right. If the guy is wrong, Apple is right. In fact, it's often "If I agree with the guy's message, Apple is morally wrong. If I disagree, they are right". This whole situation hasn't concerned me as much because of terrible work conditions in the third world or because of Apple's shady content control tactics, but because it exposes the immaturity of the public opinion, especially on tech and gaming websites.

I'm not saying opinion is invalid. I do think though that exercising your rights often does carry with it a moral weight. Apple has a right to curate their store, and in doing so, may well suppress someone's freedom of expression, a right which I certainly hold dear. It may well seem immoral to some. If it were my store, I wouldn't have banned it. Yet I'm certain I would appreciate my right to control the store and feel a moral righteousness were I to ban, say an application that aggregated child pornography sites for consumption. Having a "right" to something should imply a moral reason for such a right. Whether or not Apple is exercising their morally based right for "moral" reasons though is entirely up for debate.

But having a right to do something is not typically "utter bullshit." We protect rights because we believe they have some kind of inherent value; moral or otherwise. People often use freedom of speech in terribly disgusting, irresponsible, and even immoral ways. Nevertheless, I think the importance of the "right" transcends the moral implications.

I will heartily agree with you though in you though at much commentary found on the internet is dualistic. "I agree with what they did, and therefore they are right," is not a logical conclusion.

And that's why I present this as a moral issue, not a legal issue. If they had banned an aggregator of child porn... well, that software would probably be illegal anyway, but still, we wouldn't be discussing this. Because on the moral sphere, that ban is appropriate. Banning this software because it's bad PR for them in a platform that is a medium for creative expression for artists, though is bullshit. As in "it's a morally indefensible position by a corporate agent over an act of expression by an individual that they just happen to be able to legally curtail".

Also, and this may be getting a bit too technical for the venue, I suggest not mistaking the right for the articulation of it. Granted, there is an inherent value that is protected with property rights, which is ultimately what Apple is exercising here in regards to their app store, but when you see the app store as a public communications medium that is a majority controller of what ammounts to a duopoly over a mass communications medium, there are more relevant rights than property at stake, and free speech is one of them. There's a reason why many countries limit the amount of newspapers or TV networks a single corporation can own, and this kind of crap is it. Apple may not be in that much of a position of power yet, but them pulling this sort of thing suggests that if they were to be, they'd need to be limited in their ability to curate, as you put it, the content in their store.

BUT, that is why the law is important here. The App Store is not a public communications medium, it is a commercial property. While you may feel that there are more relevant rights than property here, the US court system does not agree. Property rights are some of the most enshrined and protected rights in this country, and the courts have repeatedly upheld a store's right to refuse to carry products. The only cases in which property rights have even been disputed in terms of freedom of expression have been when property owners have opened themselves up to free public use, such as denying someone the right to protest in the walkways of a privately owned mall. Given that Apple is the gatekeeper, the accepter, the reviewer, and seller of all products within the store, they haven't opened themselves to the public at all.

If that sounds dangerous, then that's a relavant opinion. But the law of the US doesn't currently say that freedom of expression can be allowed to override other basic rights like another's right to property.

Avatar image for ax23000
Ax23000

32

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Ax23000

The game looks terribly forced in terms of trying to sell a Big Message TM, BUT it should never have been rejected.

Avatar image for paul_tillich
Paul_Tillich

358

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paul_Tillich

@BrockNRolla said:

@NoelVeiga said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@NoelVeiga said:

Their right isn't into question. The convenience, democratic spirit and morality of it, though...

I mean, I do have a right to do many obnoxious things I don't do all the time. People spout this "it's their right" stuff in these discussions as if the moral stance on any situation was to take every possible advantage for yourself regardless of the long term ramifications or the impact on other people.

But, even if you're going to play it on a pure law of the jungle perspective, it's still a clumsy move by Apple about an app that would have gone totally unnoticed otherwise and is now getting free publicity. It's immoral, it raises questions about the convenience of supporting Apple's closed system and it's counterproductive to Apple's interests, which makes it stupid. Hence "utter bullshit".

Like I said, a lot of people are too obsessed with these dualistic views. Either I have the right or I don't. If I have the right, then I should do it. If I don't have the right, then I shouldn't. If Apple is wrong, the other guy is right. If the guy is wrong, Apple is right. In fact, it's often "If I agree with the guy's message, Apple is morally wrong. If I disagree, they are right". This whole situation hasn't concerned me as much because of terrible work conditions in the third world or because of Apple's shady content control tactics, but because it exposes the immaturity of the public opinion, especially on tech and gaming websites.

I'm not saying opinion is invalid. I do think though that exercising your rights often does carry with it a moral weight. Apple has a right to curate their store, and in doing so, may well suppress someone's freedom of expression, a right which I certainly hold dear. It may well seem immoral to some. If it were my store, I wouldn't have banned it. Yet I'm certain I would appreciate my right to control the store and feel a moral righteousness were I to ban, say an application that aggregated child pornography sites for consumption. Having a "right" to something should imply a moral reason for such a right. Whether or not Apple is exercising their morally based right for "moral" reasons though is entirely up for debate.

But having a right to do something is not typically "utter bullshit." We protect rights because we believe they have some kind of inherent value; moral or otherwise. People often use freedom of speech in terribly disgusting, irresponsible, and even immoral ways. Nevertheless, I think the importance of the "right" transcends the moral implications.

I will heartily agree with you though in you though at much commentary found on the internet is dualistic. "I agree with what they did, and therefore they are right," is not a logical conclusion.

And that's why I present this as a moral issue, not a legal issue. If they had banned an aggregator of child porn... well, that software would probably be illegal anyway, but still, we wouldn't be discussing this. Because on the moral sphere, that ban is appropriate. Banning this software because it's bad PR for them in a platform that is a medium for creative expression for artists, though is bullshit. As in "it's a morally indefensible position by a corporate agent over an act of expression by an individual that they just happen to be able to legally curtail".

Also, and this may be getting a bit too technical for the venue, I suggest not mistaking the right for the articulation of it. Granted, there is an inherent value that is protected with property rights, which is ultimately what Apple is exercising here in regards to their app store, but when you see the app store as a public communications medium that is a majority controller of what ammounts to a duopoly over a mass communications medium, there are more relevant rights than property at stake, and free speech is one of them. There's a reason why many countries limit the amount of newspapers or TV networks a single corporation can own, and this kind of crap is it. Apple may not be in that much of a position of power yet, but them pulling this sort of thing suggests that if they were to be, they'd need to be limited in their ability to curate, as you put it, the content in their store.

BUT, that is why the law is important here. The App Store is not a public communications medium, it is a commercial property. While you may feel that there are more relevant rights than property here, the US court system does not agree. Property rights are some of the most enshrined and protected rights in this country, and the courts have repeatedly upheld a store's right to refuse to carry products. The only cases in which property rights have even been disputed in terms of freedom of expression have been when property owners have opened themselves up to free public use, such as denying someone the right to protest in the walkways of a privately owned mall. Given that Apple is the gatekeeper, the accepter, the reviewer, and seller of all products within the store, they haven't opened themselves to the public at all.

If that sounds dangerous, then that's a relavant opinion. But the law of the US doesn't currently say that freedom of expression can be allowed to override other basic rights like another's right to property.

Pretty sure the point of this game was that this model is f#@*^d and contributing to a world crisis...Law, sure. Right thing to do, perhaps not.

Avatar image for brocknrolla
BrockNRolla

1741

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By BrockNRolla

@Paul_Tillich: I agree entirely.

Avatar image for legalbagel
LegalBagel

1955

Forum Posts

1590

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 7

Edited By LegalBagel

@NoelVeiga: I don't really know what to say. If you think the only way you can make an impact is voting, then I disagree with you, especially if you think something like humanely raised meat is only a scam by corporations to get people to pay more. Change can happen from above, but it also can happen from below, and I'd argue a change from below is more effective and more comprehensive.

There might still be morally problematic products out there even if you refuse to buy them, but if you get enough people to buy morally clean products then there's that much less bad stuff out there. One person buying locally raised and non-factory meat or cage-free eggs has at least the impact of that one person buying it, even if there are 100 people buying McDonald's next door. The more people that buy the better product, the more companies will do it. Eventually if that's a market leading position, then everyone will do it, and we largely eliminate the problem. As I said, it's happened before without government intervention in numerous areas. If enough consumers request something, it gets fixed.

And I don't even get your Infiniti reference. Nobody is saying that you need to entirely devote your life to charity, donate every bit of money you make to saving lives, or refuse to buy anything that has any moral issues. But that's not a reason to never donate to charity or never consider what's behind the things you buy. Charity or thoughtful consumer purchases aren't all or nothing propositions.

Avatar image for paul_tillich
Paul_Tillich

358

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paul_Tillich

@BrockNRolla: Just curious then. What do you favor? The right thing to do according to the view of a relevant group of experts or what is legal? Ideally I think the two would align: green businesses are making more money than traditional counterparts, for example.

Avatar image for shinluis
shinluis

518

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By shinluis

Oh Apple. If only you'd just shut up and take my money.

Avatar image for the_official_japanese_teabag
the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG

4312

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This game almost reminds me of that stupid game where you walk for 10 minutes and you have the choice to shoot a guy

Avatar image for brocknrolla
BrockNRolla

1741

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By BrockNRolla

@Paul_Tillich said:

@BrockNRolla: Just curious then. What do you favor? The right thing to do according to the view of a relevant group of experts or what is legal? Ideally I think the two would align: green businesses are making more money than traditional counterparts, for example.

The "ideal" as you put it would seem best. If progressive policy makers help to make laws that lead us toward a better world, that would be best. I personally think making laws to promote a green economy could lead to a great economic boon as well as being a great "moral" improvement for the country.

But, when it comes to the "relevant experts" I feel a bit wary. Understanding the motives behind their beliefs can be complicated. If a "relevant expert" happens to be a banker on wall street and they are being asked to make decisions on regulating the stocks industry, I wouldn't want them in the driver's seat.

I would generally favor the law. It's a personal bias as I'm studying to become a lawyer, but more than that, laws profess to look to a higher standard than the opinions of the moment. The opinions of the moment may well be the right answer to a given question, but our standardized laws help to provide us with a solid rock from which to build society. They should similarly evolve with it, but I wouldn't want them completely changing with the political climate.

Avatar image for oldmanlollipop
OldManLollipop

360

Forum Posts

18614

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 7

Edited By OldManLollipop

Game owns. Owns.

Avatar image for paul_tillich
Paul_Tillich

358

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paul_Tillich

@BrockNRolla: Funny, I'm getting a Ph.D. in philosophy of religion and theology. We both favor something beyond, and I quite appreciate your self description. My specialty is science and religion (work in a neuroscience and economics lab). My reference to experts meant philosophers of any sort who could appraise long-term effects of current policy. My jab was that, while legal, some current policies may not be best for long-term success for a nation/world. If you accept that your previous comment changes with the times in response to new facts, then I welcome your attention to order, which is needed.

Avatar image for milkman
Milkman

19372

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By Milkman

While I don't think I would necessarily ever buy this game, it's kind of bullshit that Apple would take this down just because it pokes fun at them.

Avatar image for freedomtown
FreedomTown

300

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By FreedomTown

Do I hate Apple censorship, yes. Do I dislike most forms of censorship, yes (I say most, because as much as I love freedom, there are lines, and they can be crossed.) Do I care that some hippy's factually inaccurate statement/video game can't become a reality? No, no I don't

Avatar image for erotolepsy
Erotolepsy

29

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Erotolepsy

Haw, this dude's game probably wouldn't be getting a fraction of the coverage it's getting now if it'd never been banned. Good going, Apple.

Avatar image for xpgamer7
xpgamer7

2488

Forum Posts

148

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 5

Edited By xpgamer7

One of the most entertaining articles I've read.

Avatar image for ninjakiller
ninjakiller

3427

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By ninjakiller

It's short, but since most of it's going to charity why not. 

Avatar image for paul_tillich
Paul_Tillich

358

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paul_Tillich

@FreedomTown said:

Do I hate Apple censorship, yes. Do I dislike most forms of censorship, yes (I say most, because as much as I love freedom, there are lines, and they can be crossed.) Do I care that some hippy's factually inaccurate statement/video game can't become a reality? No, no I don't

Do you know the costs of production? American consumerism is more or less directly responsible for people living below poverty or even dying while working in third world countries. His facts are not off.

Avatar image for brackynews
Brackynews

4385

Forum Posts

27681

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 48

Edited By Brackynews

Thanks for this Patrick!

Avatar image for ptys
ptys

2290

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

Edited By ptys

Probably not the best idea to put Apple itself in the game, should have kept it more general in terms of phone companies esp. the suicide thing being a PR nightmare for Jobs and the crew. People aren't dumb, we'd put two and two together, perhaps the ego of the developer got him in the end cause this could have been a great idea with an important message for consumers.

Avatar image for addfwyn
Addfwyn

2057

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 11

Edited By Addfwyn

@wickedsc3 said:

@Insectecutor said:

@wickedsc3 said:

Stories like these are why I'm glad I've never given Apple a dime of my money! Hope you get this game out there man!

You've probably given Foxconn many dimes of your money though, so boycotting only one of their larger clients won't do a whole lot of good. Give up HP, Dell and Sony too. Oh and Microsoft. And Nintendo.

I'm not trying to bankrupt apple with my tiny sales. I just don't like the Apple Corp. so I don't give them any of my money simple as that. I gladly give Microsoft, HP, and Sony (maybe all I have that I know of is a PS2), a lot of my money. I'm not boycotting at all just not purchasing from them as I don't like their products.

I'm confused. You say you just don't like their products, but then you say you don't like the company because of stories like this. Do you 'just not like their products' or is it because of stories like this? By stories 'like this' do you mean the rejection of the app itself or that the app itself exists?

Regardless, I'm not sure how I feel about the app itself being rejected, I am guessing it has to do with the obvious apple store parody in the app. Companies aren't going to want to approve apps that target themselves for ridicule, generally speaking. Companies are, and always will be, in it for their own profit. This should never surprise or upset anybody.

As far as the app itself? Not seeing the merit, either as a game or as a "Message". Maybe the game itself is good, but from pure description I am going off of...not so much. As a Message...this is how companies work, they aren't totalitarian third world governments. They are out to maximize profits (as the share holders demand) and thus make products appealing to the masses.

On the other hand, it certainly has gotten this guy publicity. In the 'I would never buy a product like this from you, get a [different] job' kind of way in my case, but that may not be true for everyone.

Avatar image for jazz_lafayette
Jazz_Lafayette

3897

Forum Posts

844

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

Edited By Jazz_Lafayette

I don't hold against Apple their extortionist brand pricing or even the horrible violations of humanity that their manufacturing process encourages - after all, any modern multinational corporation worth their salt participates. It's the idiot hipster consumers who insist that Apple is somehow different that fucks with my head.

Avatar image for mjames70
MJames70

40

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MJames70

Bottom line - It's Apple's store, and they have no obligation to allow their platform to be used to criticize them. They are not a government entity, so there is no freedom of speech there. Just as there is not on Xbox Live, either. Have all you hypocrites turned in your 360s and PS3s too, seeing as how Foxconn made those too?

At one time I considered being a premium member here. I'm glad I didn't. I feel I am getting what I paid for now....

Avatar image for scottygrayskull
scottygrayskull

606

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By scottygrayskull

Great writeup. And yeah, guidelines or not it seemed silly to expect anything but a ban. I mean, you're criticizing a company known for sketchy marketplace tactics in their own marketplace.

Avatar image for paul_tillich
Paul_Tillich

358

Forum Posts

40

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Paul_Tillich

I was once proud to be part of the Giantbomb community...but at least people have shown their true colors now so I can be less engaged. I thought this place was above knee jerk-off comments one would find on IGN and Gamespot...

Avatar image for jumanji
Jumanji

463

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Jumanji

@the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG said:

This game almost reminds me of that stupid game where you walk for 10 minutes and you have the choice to shoot a guy

Exactly. Another shit nongame that has the audacity to actually charge people money.

Avatar image for guttlesswonder
Guttlesswonder

32

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Guttlesswonder

@Atramentous said:

If you take a shit on someones doorstep they arent going to be happy about it. Make your protest in flash and put it up on on the net if your going to try to do something like this.

Yeah, but if you take a crap in a public park you don't make much of a statement. Either way, I am pretty sure Pedercini is relatively happy with the rejection since there are many people who would have never heard of his game had it been allowed to stay in the store. Censorship is unfortunately much better at catching the public's attention than child labor or suicide.