Postal Rejected by Google Play for "Gratuitous Violence"

Postal Rejected by Google Play for "Gratuitous Violence"

The Android version of 1997's Postal is apparently too extreme for Google Play.

Video game violence doesn't really have the shock effect that it once did. It's not hard to understand why. Whereas games like Mortal Kombat once had the power to inspire congressional hearings, interactive ultra-violence has long since become par for the course. Most people don't even bat an eye at it. The exception, it would seem, is Google Play.

According to Running With Scissors, Google Play has apparently rejected the Android version of the its game Postal. Originally released on PCs back in 1997, the game's release was apparently denied due to it containing what the studio describes as "Gratuitous Violence." The game, and its sequels, follow the adventures of a nameless lunatic that player directs through sandbox-ish levels where they can kill pretty much anyone they want. The developers, in a statement addressing the rejection, were quick to point out that Google's digital marketplace already plays host to a number of other titles with similarly extreme content. "It appears POSTAL has been rejected from Google Play due to it containing 'GRATUITOUS VIOLENCE,'" it said. "Sadly this means it won't be welcomed alongside the Grand Theft Auto series, Carmageddon and horde of Zombie games on Google Play." The studio affirmed that it will be looking into other ways of getting the game onto Android devices.

While I can't profess to have a huge love for the Postal games, I will say that I sort of agree with Running With Scissors about this being a bit hypocritical on Google's part. While the company has every right to control what it sells through its storefront, the original Postal doesn't really have anything going on that's much worse than the likes of Grand Theft Auto. It's rejection, in turn, feels a bit arbitrary to me. What do you guys think? Do you sympathize with Running With Scissors or is your mind more in line with Google?

Source: Running With Scissors

Permalink

*sigh*

*takes swig of beer*

*inhales deeply*

FFFFFFFFFFFFfffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuu***************************************************************************************** Google Play.

But seriously though, does anyone actually use that thing? I know if I wanted to play Postal, GP wouldn't even be nominated for "ways to play it with". I do agree that the rejection seems arbitrary, though I don't think it is, as Google wants to make money, and let's face it, Postal wouldn't sell well on it since everyone who was going to buy it already has on Steam or one of the other digital distribution services out there.

Carmageddon is way worse violence wise, you can literally run over a granny and a child multiple times until there's nothing but a pulp of blood left. It's also a lot of fun to run over cows, so yeah, it's not the most "realistic" thing ever, neither does GTA III or Postal for that matter, it's one of those games that are so ridiculous and over the top, one can't help but to laugh.

Google Play sure has a nice, big ass to stick their heads over.

Seriously? I mean really, this isn't a late April FOol's Gag. God help them if RWS sent them Postal 2 for android. Of course who cares. It's on Steam.

So is anyone really suprised by this news? I mean really because I'm not!

Scarim Coral:
So is anyone really suprised by this news? I mean really because I'm not!

I wasn't at first. Untill I checked the Google Play store and saw that Carmageddon is indeed on there with the tagline "so many pedestrians so little time" and everything. So yeah this does seem a bit suspect to me.

1) Strike a deal with the Humble Bundle
2) Anyone who gets it would be able to side-load it via the Humble Bundle app
3) Earn money off your Android port while simultaneously supporting charity

This would be a win-win for all parties involved.

Scrythe:
1) Strike a deal with the Humble Bundle
2) Anyone who gets it would be able to side-load it via the Humble Bundle app
3) Earn money off your Android port while simultaneously supporting charity

This would be a win-win for all parties involved.

Oh god, now I want it. "Ultra-violent Bundle. Piss off soccer moms and politicians alike, all whole donating to charity!"

chadachada123:

Scrythe:
1) Strike a deal with the Humble Bundle
2) Anyone who gets it would be able to side-load it via the Humble Bundle app
3) Earn money off your Android port while simultaneously supporting charity

This would be a win-win for all parties involved.

Oh god, now I want it. "Ultra-violent Bundle. Piss off soccer moms and politicians alike, all whole donating to charity!"

This must be done!

I'm very interested in Google's definition of non gratuitous violence.

Scrythe:
1) Strike a deal with the Humble Bundle
2) Anyone who gets it would be able to side-load it via the Humble Bundle app
3) Earn money off your Android port while simultaneously supporting charity

This would be a win-win for all parties involved.

It doesn't even have to go on a bundle. They could just sell it on the Humble Store, along with many other Android games. RWS also has a big fanbase which would be willing to just buy it directly from the RWS site.

The first postal was pretty much the "Hatred" of the 90s. i am not surprised.

MonsterCrit:
Seriously? I mean really, this isn't a late April FOol's Gag. God help them if RWS sent them Postal 2 for android. Of course who cares. It's on Steam.

Postal 2 is far more tame and humour oriented than Postal 1.

Doom972:
RWS also has a big fanbase which would be willing to just buy it directly from the RWS site.

i think that is a very good idea to do. We need to really shatter the monopoly of google play store. its not the only place to buy apps, it shouldnt be used as such.

And yes before someone inevitably asks, i am against Steams monopoly as well.

Strazdas:
The first postal was pretty much the "Hatred" of the 90s. i am not surprised.

MonsterCrit:
Seriously? I mean really, this isn't a late April FOol's Gag. God help them if RWS sent them Postal 2 for android. Of course who cares. It's on Steam.

Postal 2 is far more tame and humour oriented than Postal 1.

Doom972:
RWS also has a big fanbase which would be willing to just buy it directly from the RWS site.

i think that is a very good idea to do. We need to really shatter the monopoly of google play store. its not the only place to buy apps, it shouldnt be used as such.

And yes before someone inevitably asks, i am against Steams monopoly as well.

Monopoly?

GoG, Kngregate, GreenmanGames, Amazon Digital, Origin. When you can name 5 major competitors ... you really can't call it a monopoly. Being the most used and preferred service does not mean you have a monopoly. A Monopoly comes where the consumer has no choice and where the monopoly holder actively takes steps to shut competition out of the market. So ... Steam not quite a monopoly, they're just very good at pleasing their customers so they have many customers.

MonsterCrit:

Monopoly?

GoG, Kngregate, GreenmanGames, Amazon Digital, Origin. When you can name 5 major competitors ... you really can't call it a monopoly. Being the most used and preferred service does not mean you have a monopoly. A Monopoly comes where the consumer has no choice and where the monopoly holder actively takes steps to shut competition out of the market. So ... Steam not quite a monopoly, they're just very good at pleasing their customers so they have many customers.

Effectively yes.

GoG only sells old games and games they make themselves.

Origin has EA games that are not really competing with Steam because steam does not stock those.

Amazon is merelly a steam key reseller in this case and so is GreenmanGames.

I dont know Kongregate, so i cant comment. A more realistic competition is the Humble store which does sell new games as alternative source, thought they are very much an indie games place.

Lets say i want to buy, oh, say, Skyrim. can i buy a skyrim for PC that does not require steam? No? Well then Steam has a monopoly on skyrim. how many games do you think has options?

Strazdas:

MonsterCrit:

Monopoly?

GoG, Kngregate, GreenmanGames, Amazon Digital, Origin. When you can name 5 major competitors ... you really can't call it a monopoly. Being the most used and preferred service does not mean you have a monopoly. A Monopoly comes where the consumer has no choice and where the monopoly holder actively takes steps to shut competition out of the market. So ... Steam not quite a monopoly, they're just very good at pleasing their customers so they have many customers.

Effectively yes.

GoG only sells old games and games they make themselves.

They're selling Witcher 3. They sell any game publishers will opt to sell on their platform. Their DRM free policy however has made some publishers somewhat shy of them. So in short they are not as preferable to their customers as say Steam. Heck you'll find a good chunk of GoG's library listed on STeam (at a slightly cheaper cost no less).

Origin has EA games that are not really competing with Steam because steam does not stock those.

Again incorrect. for starters given that EA is basically the Bog of the Video Games inddustry. a story devoted to their IP would be a large store in of itself. Secondly, EA games are listed on Steam. Quite a few of them in fact. There's no really schism between Steam and Origin. EA just has a policy of not releasing games on steam where they expect a substantial amount of the revenue to come from DLC and addon content.

Amazon is merelly a steam key reseller in this case and so is GreenmanGames.

They sell Keys based on trhe supplier. I.e the get keys from steam they get Keys from Origin they get Keys from Blizzard.

I dont know Kongregate, so i cant comment. A more realistic competition is the Humble store which does sell new games as alternative source, thought they are very much an indie games place.

FUnny you should mention that since the Humble Store is very much just reselling Steam keys as in most of their games are redeemable on Steam, or Origin.

Lets say i want to buy, oh, say, Skyrim. can i buy a skyrim for PC that does not require steam? No? Well then Steam has a monopoly on skyrim. how many games do you think has options?

Yeah you can actually. But even if your statement. IF I chose to eat exclusively at a diner because I enjoy the food and the waitress and I have a thing going on. DOes that mean they have a monopoly on me? Nope. It simply means they are my preferred choice as a customer.

Please and this is what many, many, many forget. Steam and other sites like them have two sets of customers. One is the gamer, the buyer. The oither is the publishers, those selling. I.e the publishers putting their stuff up on Steam for Sale is as much a customer of Steam as the gamer is. Perhaps even more so. SO The fact that Steam is preferred by publishers is simply indicative that they have done a very good job of pleasing their customers.

Preferrence != Monopoly.
Dominance != Monopoly

These things simply mean they are very good at what you do.

If a seller chooses to sell exclusively through a particular store chain it's because that store chain gave them a better deal. Not that they are the only store chain in the region.

StewShearer:
It's rejection

Back to journalism school!

MonsterCrit:

They're selling Witcher 3. They sell any game publishers will opt to sell on their platform. Their DRM free policy however has made some publishers somewhat shy of them. So in short they are not as preferable to their customers as say Steam. Heck you'll find a good chunk of GoG's library listed on STeam (at a slightly cheaper cost no less).

I already said that. not sure why you are pointing it out as if its a rebuttal. You are only correct in theory, but in practice they are, as their name, Good old games.

Again incorrect. for starters given that EA is basically the Bog of the Video Games inddustry. a story devoted to their IP would be a large store in of itself. Secondly, EA games are listed on Steam. Quite a few of them in fact. There's no really schism between Steam and Origin. EA just has a policy of not releasing games on steam where they expect a substantial amount of the revenue to come from DLC and addon content.

Yes, there are games listed on steam that are from before Origin decided to hoard its games. And yes there is one exception to that. hardly makes it a rule.

They sell Keys based on trhe supplier. I.e the get keys from steam they get Keys from Origin they get Keys from Blizzard.

key relseller is not a competition. its just retail trader.

FUnny you should mention that since the Humble Store is very much just reselling Steam keys as in most of their games are redeemable on Steam, or Origin.

there are some games on Humble store that you can download and install DRM-free.

Yeah you can actually. But even if your statement. IF I chose to eat exclusively at a diner because I enjoy the food and the waitress and I have a thing going on. DOes that mean they have a monopoly on me? Nope. It simply means they are my preferred choice as a customer.

not equivalent. a correct example would be that you had to either eat exclusively at a diner or never eat steak again. so yes, they have monopoly on steak. Could you survive without steak? sure. but they still have the monopoly there.

SO The fact that Steam is preferred by publishers is simply indicative that they have done a very good job of pleasing their customers.

No its not. If you ask indie devs around most will state that they have no choice but to sell on steam because steam is the only platform most people will even look at their games.

Dominance != Monopoly

Of course it does. in fact economic monopoly is defined as a single company having big enough market share to sway the entire market at its will. dominance is the definition of monopoly. Now not all monopolies are necessarely bad in themselves, but they are monopolies.

This doesn't surprise me, Google constantly makes bad decisions anymore. Eventually the ground swell will suck them under and they'll cave in. Then the biggest irony is when that makes the news tons more people than would have will get it... Then they'll say: Hey wait a second... I don't even like Postal! What's wrong with me, why did I buy this?"

Strazdas:

Yeah you can actually. But even if your statement. IF I chose to eat exclusively at a diner because I enjoy the food and the waitress and I have a thing going on. DOes that mean they have a monopoly on me? Nope. It simply means they are my preferred choice as a customer.

not equivalent. a correct example would be that you had to either eat exclusively at a diner or never eat steak again. so yes, they have monopoly on steak. Could you survive without steak? sure. but they still have the monopoly there.

*Sigh* You really don';t quiote grasp the meaning of monopoly. Now your example would only be a monopoly if the first diner whas actively preventing other diners from serving steak. If they aren't well again.. it's simply that they are catering to my desire for steak. That's not monopoly.. that's customer satisfaction.

SO The fact that Steam is preferred by publishers is simply indicative that they have done a very good job of pleasing their customers.

No its not. If you ask indie devs around most will state that they have no choice but to sell on steam because steam is the only platform most people will even look at their games.

And why? are they so popular with gamers. Again, this is not a monopoly. This is simply cuonsumer preference. As for the developers. Yes they feel that they have to get on Steam but hjere's the joke. being on Steam does not prevent them from being on GoG, Greenman, AMAzon digital or selling from their own website. In some cases there may be an exclusivity period. About 3 6 months bur other wise they're free to distribute through as many retailers as they want. If given a choice and finite resources though they would prefer to be on Steam.. because steam offers the best bang for their buck.

So again... customer preference. Both by developers and gamers. That is not a monopoly.

Dominance != Monopoly

Of course it does. in fact economic monopoly is defined as a single company having big enough market share to sway the entire market at its will. dominance is the definition of monopoly. Now not all monopolies are necessarely bad in themselves, but they are monopolies.

Nope. A Monopoly is where you have a single supplier of a good or service in a given market that actively tries to keep competing suppliers out of the market-space. This usually requires some collusion at the government level. Or you can have an Oligopoly where a group of dominant but still competing players in a market collude to keep new suppliers out of the market. You know like how the cable industry is run in the US. Free Market which is what the digital software market actually is; is where one can enter the market freely as a supplier and where the consumer has the right to choose.

As said. publishers are free to sell with as many retailers as they want. and are free to not sell. Just as I am free to eat at Taco Bell instead of Curry Palace... but I would agreeably have to have some sort of vendetta against my bowels to do that.

That they choose steam is that STeam not only gives them a share comparable to their competitors, they also provide a strong suite of features to help the publisher not to mention high market visibility. In short, they provide a better bargain. Meaning that they offer more benefits than their compeititors which means.. they're just better at doing their jobs.

So again Dominance != Monopoly. That's just a sign that you've done your jobe better than your competition. If you need further clarification. Talk to Someone in Upper level management where you work. They understand the subtle differencees... They have to,

MonsterCrit:

*Sigh* You really don';t quiote grasp the meaning of monopoly. Now your example would only be a monopoly if the first diner whas actively preventing other diners from serving steak. If they aren't well again.. it's simply that they are catering to my desire for steak. That's not monopoly.. that's customer satisfaction.

if other diners are not serving steak for any reason the only one that does has a monopoly on steak. it may not be a monopoly caused by them interfering in other business, but its a monopoly nonetheless.

Nope. A Monopoly is where you have a single supplier of a good or service in a given market that actively tries to keep competing suppliers out of the market-space. This usually requires some collusion at the government level. Or you can have an Oligopoly where a group of dominant but still competing players in a market collude to keep new suppliers out of the market. You know like how the cable industry is run in the US. Free Market which is what the digital software market actually is; is where one can enter the market freely as a supplier and where the consumer has the right to choose.

False. I already described a monopoly for you. what you describe is an absolute monopoly that was achieved via removal of competition. this is a small subsector of all monopolies. Its like saying Honda is a car therefore only Hondas are cars.

Your idea that a government is required for a monopoly is laughable. ever heard of a term "natural monopoly"?

Post deleted.

Strazdas:

MonsterCrit:

*Sigh* You really don';t quiote grasp the meaning of monopoly. Now your example would only be a monopoly if the first diner whas actively preventing other diners from serving steak. If they aren't well again.. it's simply that they are catering to my desire for steak. That's not monopoly.. that's customer satisfaction.

if other diners are not serving steak for any reason the only one that does has a monopoly on steak. it may not be a monopoly caused by them interfering in other business, but its a monopoly nonetheless.

You still aren't understanding. The interfering part is the difference. Intent. It's like the difference between Murder, Homocide, and Manslaughter. Small difference but the key difference is the intent. See if there is only one business serving steak and there is nothing preventing others from serving steak then it is not a true monopoly. If I as a diner owner say I shall only server vegan meals then that is my choice to not supply what is a very obvious demand. If a book store owner chooses not to sell Playboy and adult magazine...unlike his competitor, that's choice, not a monopoly.

Nope. A Monopoly is where you have a single supplier of a good or service in a given market that actively tries to keep competing suppliers out of the market-space. This usually requires some collusion at the government level. Or you can have an Oligopoly where a group of dominant but still competing players in a market collude to keep new suppliers out of the market. You know like how the cable industry is run in the US. Free Market which is what the digital software market actually is; is where one can enter the market freely as a supplier and where the consumer has the right to choose.

False. I already described a monopoly for you. what you describe is an absolute monopoly that was achieved via removal of competition. this is a small subsector of all monopolies. Its like saying Honda is a car therefore only Hondas are cars.

Your definition is incorrect. Being the sole supplier of a good or service is not enough to be a monopoly. A monopoly comes where you also have the ability to control the supply I.e Prevent others from supplying the same or competing goods. As said.. go talk to an economics professor or someone who's got a BS.c or evven a FIrst Degree in business Administration.

Your idea that a government is required for a monopoly is laughable. ever heard of a term "natural monopoly"?

My words were that it usually requires Government Collusion. And yes it sorta does. Anything you make and sell... can be copied and sold by someone else. WHat prevents someone from slapping the Nike Logo on their own line of shoes and selling them as Nike? Think about that. Whether intentionally or unintentionally governments do play a part in monopolies, if only because it is the government that sets the laws that protect Intellectual Property. More directly a government can award sole rights of distributorship of goods and service. thusly creating serious barriers.

Natural Monopolies are exceptionally rare and are usually very fleeting. Any product can be duplicated. Even people.

Besides I've already proven that Steam itself is not a monopoly. By any definition. They are simply dominant by means of being the preferred choice. When a better choice becomes available that will change. If 70% of the market chooses Pepsi over Coke does Pepsi have a Monopoly ... nope...Nothing stops anyone from selling COke and nothing stops people from buying Coke... the consumer by their own internal assessment of Direct COst, COnvenience, Value and Opportunity Loss have decided that Pepsi fullfils their needs better than Coke. Nothing stops a dev from not releasing on Steam, it's just that releasing on Steam by most calculations better serves the Developer's interests.

Sorta like how there's nothing stopping you from doing a cross country race barefooted. But it's likely in your best interest to wear some shoes.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here