Take-Two takes legal action over pulled GTA ads

Despite breaking records for sales in its first week, Grand Theft Auto IV publisher Take-Two has announced that it is suing the Chicago Transit Authority over its decision to pull Grand Theft Auto IV advertising last month.

As reported by Fox News back in April, the CTA pulled the ads following a violent shooting in the city. However, Take-Two is taking action as it believes the firm has breached a $300,000 advertising agreement in doing so.

Take-Two is suing for damages of $300,000 and is reportedly seeking a court order to force the CTA to re-run the ads.

News Source: Jolt

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Records shattered by GTA IV

Next Story

Killzone 2 slips into 2009

23 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This lawsuit is fine. If they broke their contract they should have to compensate them for breach of contract.

(Lexcyn said @ #7)
This lawsuit is fine. If they broke their contract they should have to compensate them for breach of contract.

i dont think anyone is debating that fact. its the idea that they would remove an advertisement because of a completely unrelated event that is worthy of discussion.

I don't think this is necessarily a case of them blaming the game for the violence. It might just be more of a sensitivity-related move. For example, remember how the movie Collateral Damage was to be released shortly after the September 11 attacks on New York? I've never seen the movie, but as I recall it was about terrorism. They delayed the release of the movie because it might have been seen as crass or insensitive. There are probably a lot of upset and agry people out there in Chicago that do not want to see those ads right now, so they've pulled them for the time being.

(Skwerl said @ #6.3)
I don't think this is necessarily a case of them blaming the game for the violence. It might just be more of a sensitivity-related move. For example, remember how the movie Collateral Damage was to be released shortly after the September 11 attacks on New York? I've never seen the movie, but as I recall it was about terrorism. They delayed the release of the movie because it might have been seen as crass or insensitive. There are probably a lot of upset and agry people out there in Chicago that do not want to see those ads right now, so they've pulled them for the time being.

those people are simply ignorant and should not be pandered too.

(Nose Nuggets said @ #6.4)
those people are simply ignorant and should not be pandered too.

You certainly like to use the word "ignorant" a lot. Ignorant means uninformed, and I would think that quite a few people that know plenty about the situation would still rather not have the ads displayed. I don't really think violent games contributes much, if any, to violent behavior. And yet, I still maintain that it's a bad move (and obviously, now) for the CTA to feature these ads.
I agree that pandering to people's silly wants is bad. However, the reality is that the CTA doesn't want to have to deal with negativity from mobs of Bible-lovers, angry victims of violence, distraught mothers of victims, etc. In the end, it's less trouble to just get rid of the ads. No one's going to give the CTA any grief for that but Take Two- and without emotion involved. Let the attorneys take care of it (to the tune of $250 an hour, billed to the taxpayer, unfortunately). Right or wrong, it's the way it is.

(Skwerl said @ #6.5)

You certainly like to use the word "ignorant" a lot. Ignorant means uninformed, and I would think that quite a few people that know plenty about the situation would still rather not have the ads displayed. I don't really think violent games contributes much, if any, to violent behavior. And yet, I still maintain that it's a bad move (and obviously, now) for the CTA to feature these ads.
I agree that pandering to people's silly wants is bad. However, the reality is that the CTA doesn't want to have to deal with negativity from mobs of Bible-lovers, angry victims of violence, distraught mothers of victims, etc. In the end, it's less trouble to just get rid of the ads. No one's going to give the CTA any grief for that but Take Two- and without emotion involved. Let the attorneys take care of it (to the tune of $250 an hour, billed to the taxpayer, unfortunately). Right or wrong, it's the way it is.

i used the word ignorant twice. i dont consider that a lot. i also find its a much better word to use then moron, or idiot. as you stated they aren't unintelligent, just uninformed. so we agree. its about whats easy, not whats right.

(Skwerl said @ #6.5)

You certainly like to use the word "ignorant" a lot. Ignorant means uninformed, and I would think that quite a few people that know plenty about the situation would still rather not have the ads displayed. I don't really think violent games contributes much, if any, to violent behavior. And yet, I still maintain that it's a bad move (and obviously, now) for the CTA to feature these ads.
I agree that pandering to people's silly wants is bad. However, the reality is that the CTA doesn't want to have to deal with negativity from mobs of Bible-lovers, angry victims of violence, distraught mothers of victims, etc. In the end, it's less trouble to just get rid of the ads. No one's going to give the CTA any grief for that but Take Two- and without emotion involved. Let the attorneys take care of it (to the tune of $250 an hour, billed to the taxpayer, unfortunately). Right or wrong, it's the way it is.

It's people who kill, not ads. If people are mentally retarded, parents can't teach common sense, what's write or wrong, it's their fault, not the ads. Just because I see a violent, sex oriented, blah blah blah ad I won't go and do it. Those people that do are the ones that need to go to a mental institute or jail.

While I am not defending the Chicago Transit Authority's decision to pull the advertising without discussing it first with Take Two, the reports coming out in our local news do somewhat provide insight into why the decision was made. The same week the ads started to run, there was a rash of gang violence in some of the more troubled areas of the city and in a few days there were 22 shootings, mostly between children and high school kids - mostly gang related.

The CTA's decision was a kneejerk reaction to the social situation facing certain communities to help avert inciting any other violence or adding unnecessary fuel to the fire so to speak in these areas. The CTA said they are not opposed to running the ads, they were the ones who agreed to it in the first place; it was just unfortunate timing with the ads running and the local shootings taking place.

It was not an irresponsible decision on their part from a public safety point of view. Removing the ads was not an attack on the game or gaming industry, it was simply to avoid inciting further violence. I imagine the ads will still be run sometime this summer, especially in light of the suit filed by Take Two. What the CTA should have done was approached Take Two about the issue and their ideas before doing this without having those talks beforehand.

(riley said @ #5)
While I am not defending the Chicago Transit Authority's decision to pull the advertising without discussing it first with Take Two, the reports coming out in our local news do somewhat provide insight into why the decision was made. The same week the ads started to run, there was a rash of gang violence in some of the more troubled areas of the city and in a few days there were 22 shootings, mostly between children and high school kids - mostly gang related.

The CTA's decision was a kneejerk reaction to the social situation facing certain communities to help avert inciting any other violence or adding unnecessary fuel to the fire so to speak in these areas. The CTA said they are not opposed to running the ads, they were the ones who agreed to it in the first place; it was just unfortunate timing with the ads running and the local shootings taking place.

It was not an irresponsible decision on their part from a public safety point of view. Removing the ads was not an attack on the game or gaming industry, it was simply to avoid inciting further violence. I imagine the ads will still be run sometime this summer, especially in light of the suit filed by Take Two. What the CTA should have done was approached Take Two about the issue and their ideas before doing this without having those talks beforehand.

correlation does not equal causation.

(Nose Nuggets said @ #5.1)
correlation does not equal causation.

That's true, but the suggestion that violence in games can have an affect on violence in real life has not been disproven.

(Skwerl said @ #5.2)

That's true, but the suggestion that violence in games can have an affect on violence in real life has not been disproven.

irrelevant. violence is natural. violence has been around since the dawn of man and will not disappear because violent suggestion from media no longer exists. people are conscious beings able to make their own decisions. people should be charged and disciplined for the actions they commit not actions they could somehow have suggested. its a double standard anyway. alcohol has been proven to cause large amounts of pain, suffering, and death. but is it illegal or shunned? no, because its publicly accepted. It has not been proven or dis-proven that violent movies cause violent behavior, but again its a non-issue. all it comes down to is peoples lack of understand or willingness to jump to a perceived conclusion.

a company should not remove an advertisement for booze, violent video games, violent movies, or guns simply because an act of violence occurs. it sends the wrong message.

people who get bent out of shape because a company does not remove above stated advertisements in the event of a violent act are ignorant. to put it mildly.

In light of the shooting and all the recent violence and controversy over violent video games, I'm surprised any public agency in their right minds would advertise a game like this. I don't know if it's reasonable to pull the ads, but running them was in very poor taste in the first place.

(Skwerl said @ #4)
In light of the shooting and all the recent violence and controversy over violent video games, I'm surprised any public agency in their right minds would advertise a game like this. I don't know if it's reasonable to pull the ads, but running them was in very poor taste in the first place.

so why is it reasonable to not advertise an M rated video game but ok to advertise bloody R rated movies? The later even depicts real people being killed/maimed/murdered while the video game is 100% fake.

(Nose Nuggets said @ #4.1)

so why is it reasonable to not advertise an M rated video game but ok to advertise bloody R rated movies? The later even depicts real people being killed/maimed/murdered while the video game is 100% fake.

From a PR standpoint, it's more reasonable because violence-resulting-from-violent-movies hasn't been in the news much lately. The target has been video games. For a particularly violent movie, that is, a movie surrounded by controversy because of its violence, that shouldn't be advertised on the property of a public agency either. These people should use their heads and keep the advertisements on public transportation on the high road. Advertising Mario Galaxy or Beauty and the Beast 7 on the side of a bus is unlikely to raise anyone's ire.

(Skwerl said @ #4.2)

From a PR standpoint, it's more reasonable because violence-resulting-from-violent-movies hasn't been in the news much lately. The target has been video games. For a particularly violent movie, that is, a movie surrounded by controversy because of its violence, that shouldn't be advertised on the property of a public agency either. These people should use their heads and keep the advertisements on public transportation on the high road. Advertising Mario Galaxy or Beauty and the Beast 7 on the side of a bus is unlikely to raise anyone's ire.

a PR standpoint? look man im talking about rational insight here. if you want to get into why the media jumps on video games and not movies, we can do that. but its entirely irrelevant to my argument here.

the bottom line is there should not be ANY controversy for advertising a legal consumer good. you should be able to advertise cigarettes or porn on highway billboards so long as the advertisement itself is not above a G rating. its an advertisement. not a public statement. if you are offended or dont like the product being advertised, simply dont buy it.

(Nose Nuggets said @ #4.3)
a PR standpoint? look man im talking about rational insight here. if you want to get into why the media jumps on video games and not movies, we can do that. but its entirely irrelevant to my argument here.

the bottom line is there should not be ANY controversy for advertising a legal consumer good. you should be able to advertise cigarettes or porn on highway billboards so long as the advertisement itself is not above a G rating. its an advertisement. not a public statement. if you are offended or dont like the product being advertised, simply dont buy it.

You're completely missing my point. Those at the CTA responsible for approving the ads should never have done so in the first place. If this were about an ad on a privately owned taxi cab company or a newspaper, it wouldn't matter. It's not a bright move for any public service(a government body ran by taxpayer money), to advertise any product that would be considered objectionable by a large number of people, be it a violent game, a sexually provocative movie, cigarrettes, a political figure, or carginogenic nipple clamps. "Rational insight" should have stopped the CTA from running the ads in the first place. The CTA wouldn't be in this position now if it had exercised judgment in the first place.

(Skwerl said @ #4.4)

You're completely missing my point. Those at the CTA responsible for approving the ads should never have done so in the first place. If this were about an ad on a privately owned taxi cab company or a newspaper, it wouldn't matter. It's not a bright move for any public service(a government body ran by taxpayer money), to advertise any product that would be considered objectionable by a large number of people, be it a violent game, a sexually provocative movie, cigarrettes, a political figure, or carginogenic nipple clamps. "Rational insight" should have stopped the CTA from running the ads in the first place. The CTA wouldn't be in this position now if it had exercised judgment in the first place.

you make an excellent point. however, i doubt previous 'risky' advertising has caused problems. it goes back to my other comment about how correlation does not equal causation. its BECAUSE the CTA is making a fuss that people draw these bogus conclusions between video games and violent crime. it would be one thing if (as completely bat**** crazy as it sounds) there was some kind of tangible evidence that violent video games directly influence violent crime. then this could be an issue. but it doesn't, and won't, so all it does it fuel this absurd fire.

the only conclusion i can surmise is that these "old guys" in exec positions at places like the CTA can somehow rationalize the notion that violent video games create violent crime, and in an effort to do nothing more then save their own asses will go to extraordinary lengths to distance their cushy jobs from said video games.


/mmmmmm carginogenic nipple clamps.......
//fap fap fap fap

it depends -- if they paid for the ads to be run, they should be run, unless they get their money back or something. either way it still screws their marketing plans.
as for skyypunk, there is still such a thing as free speech in america even if its nearly impossible to exercise without a lawyer.