Discussion Forums > Gaming
Remington Rifles new game in bad PR blunder ???
Guru Zeb:
--- Quote from: Meomix on November 29, 2010, 02:04:28 PM ---
--- Quote from: Guru Zeb on November 25, 2010, 09:35:02 PM ---http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/remingtonsuperslamhuntingafrica/index.html
Just an amusing one i spotted, surely Remingtons PR people are living in a bunker or something.
They have allowed a developer to release a game associated with their company, in which you gun down ever endangered species in Africa larger than a bush rat ...... ROFLMFAO .... WTF?!?!?!
The only way they could have generated worst PR for their company would been to force the developers to add a few Bantu tribesmen to gun down too.
I know their business is allowing people to gun down wild animals and other human beings either unarmed or using inferior weapons but WTF ?!?!?!
--- End quote ---
Ok i ask you, how is making merchandise of their business model a bad PR move, why is it a bad PR move?
In fact them making a game out of their business would actually keep those animals alive longer, how is this a bad influence again?
--- End quote ---
For a start Remington's 'business model' has nothing to do with hunting endangered animals, its about developing and selling firearms and peripheral accessories.
Further you must be joking if you are seriously trying to suggest that this game will prevent any endangered animals being killed. Since the killing of endangered animals is primarily an illegal actively perpetrated by mostly local criminals so poor the probably have never seen a computer. The other killing is controlled culls by wardens and hunters employed by the wildlife authorities. I find it hard to believe that either of these groups would be encouraged to alter their behaviour by a computer game.
However i freely admit ( even though i never suggested the converse ) that the opposite is also true, no one with a rational mind could suggest that this game would encourage people to kill endangered animals. I certainly haven't.
At no point have suggested this game is a "bad influence" ....... just a bad PR move.
But it is mistakes to assume that peoples objections or distaste at certain games is focused solely on the games ability to encourage a given type of behaviour, as the truth is this is often close to zero. As with many things in society. Often objections are based more on peoples moral/philosophical objections to a given activity.
Its a BAD PR move because, it will do nothing to further Reminton's business, i personally don't see this game encouraging many sales. All it will do is upset people of an environmental/animal rights bent, which could easily lead to a campaign being launched that could definitely hurt Reminton ...... of course this is speculation. But thats exactly what PR is about you think what are the gains vs what negative outcomes COULD occur.
Think of this scenario:
There are a few bush ranch tourist shooting lodges in Africa, where you can legally book in and shoot wild animals ( not endangered ones as thats illegal via international laws ).
image you run one of them. Various environmentalists, greenies, and animal rights groups kick up a minor fuss about Remintons involvement with the game. Then you get a call from a journalist asking amongst other questions who's guns you use.
A few weeks later your due to order some new guns for the lodge.
What do you do ??
Buy guns from a company that is maybe attracting negative scrutiny?
Or buy guns from another company who is not attracting negative scrutiny?
This is how things work in the real world. I guarantee it would be pretty easy to stir up a campaign amongst greenie/animal rights groups against Reminton over this game.
Its that simple. And thats how PR works and how PR extends beyond your customer/user base.
Meomix:
... So you're pissed that they made a game containing potential illegal activity, or that they even bothered to make a game in the first place.
If you are mainly concerned about the bad PR i don't see why that should be a concern, it isn't going to alter many peoples choices in the long run.
No matter how you spin it, someone will find a reason why this or this sucks.
If they decided to make a FPS shooter instead, human rights activists would start hooting their horn as usual yet cant do shit because it is none of their business.
undetz:
--- Quote from: Guru Zeb on November 29, 2010, 03:36:03 PM ---
--- Quote from: Meomix on November 29, 2010, 02:04:28 PM ---
--- Quote from: Guru Zeb on November 25, 2010, 09:35:02 PM ---http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/remingtonsuperslamhuntingafrica/index.html
Just an amusing one i spotted, surely Remingtons PR people are living in a bunker or something.
They have allowed a developer to release a game associated with their company, in which you gun down ever endangered species in Africa larger than a bush rat ...... ROFLMFAO .... WTF?!?!?!
The only way they could have generated worst PR for their company would been to force the developers to add a few Bantu tribesmen to gun down too.
I know their business is allowing people to gun down wild animals and other human beings either unarmed or using inferior weapons but WTF ?!?!?!
--- End quote ---
Ok i ask you, how is making merchandise of their business model a bad PR move, why is it a bad PR move?
In fact them making a game out of their business would actually keep those animals alive longer, how is this a bad influence again?
--- End quote ---
For a start Remington's 'business model' has nothing to do with hunting endangered animals, its about developing and selling firearms and peripheral accessories.
Further you must be joking if you are seriously trying to suggest that this game will prevent any endangered animals being killed. Since the killing of endangered animals is primarily an illegal actively perpetrated by mostly local criminals so poor the probably have never seen a computer. The other killing is controlled culls by wardens and hunters employed by the wildlife authorities. I find it hard to believe that either of these groups would be encouraged to alter their behaviour by a computer game.
However i freely admit ( even though i never suggested the converse ) that the opposite is also true, no one with a rational mind could suggest that this game would encourage people to kill endangered animals. I certainly haven't.
At no point have suggested this game is a "bad influence" ....... just a bad PR move.
But it is mistakes to assume that peoples objections or distaste at certain games is focused solely on the games ability to encourage a given type of behaviour, as the truth is this is often close to zero. As with many things in society. Often objections are based more on peoples moral/philosophical objections to a given activity.
Its a BAD PR move because, it will do nothing to further Reminton's business, i personally don't see this game encouraging many sales. All it will do is upset people of an environmental/animal rights bent, which could easily lead to a campaign being launched that could definitely hurt Reminton ...... of course this is speculation. But thats exactly what PR is about you think what are the gains vs what negative outcomes COULD occur.
Think of this scenario:
There are a few bush ranch tourist shooting lodges in Africa, where you can legally book in and shoot wild animals ( not endangered ones as thats illegal via international laws ).
image you run one of them. Various environmentalists, greenies, and animal rights groups kick up a minor fuss about Remintons involvement with the game. Then you get a call from a journalist asking amongst other questions who's guns you use.
A few weeks later your due to order some new guns for the lodge.
What do you do ??
Buy guns from a company that is maybe attracting negative scrutiny?
Or buy guns from another company who is not attracting negative scrutiny?
This is how things work in the real world. I guarantee it would be pretty easy to stir up a campaign amongst greenie/animal rights groups against Reminton over this game.
Its that simple. And thats how PR works and how PR extends beyond your customer/user base.
--- End quote ---
I disagree with your analysis. Most animal rights activists and conservationists have better things to do than kicking up a fuss about video games. [sarcasm] Also, unlike students and pupils who become experts at using firearms and go on rampages and kill their teachers solely because of the video games they play, there is no evidence that playing certain video games makes a person go out into nature and shoot non-human animals. [/sarcasm]
fohfoh:
I like how so many people know nothing about vertical integration...
Guru Zeb:
--- Quote from: Meomix on November 29, 2010, 03:51:14 PM ---... So you're pissed that they made a game containing potential illegal activity, or that they even bothered to make a game in the first place.
If you are mainly concerned about the bad PR i don't see why that should be a concern, it isn't going to alter many peoples choices in the long run.
No matter how you spin it, someone will find a reason why this or this sucks.
If they decided to make a FPS shooter instead, human rights activists would start hooting their horn as usual yet cant do shit because it is none of their business.
--- End quote ---
Actually am not pissed about anything ....... read my original post please.
i was more amused than anything.
How many times do i need to say I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HUNTING OR ARMS COMPANIES.
Ok everyone is entitled to an opinion ...........
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version