Rejected due to potential violence against children

alexy · 02-09-2010, 07:24 PM

I'm not sure what I'm after beyond sympathy and thoughts of this latest rejection for me.
After months of development, I submitted by game "Babies" which was rejected due to "potential violence against children".
The original version had an ambulance waiting to save the babies where you bounced them into the Ambulance.

This was fair enough, but I re-did the game to be more geared around toys/dolls rather than babies and only this morning got a call from Apple saying they can't put it in the App Store.
The toys were then being thrown from the Toy Shop, into an awaiting courier van.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QnC8onwiAg

Screenshots:
Bubbas - Save them; you're their only hope

Interested in your thoughts, but feel a little hurt after all the time and effort put into the game.

rocotilos · 02-09-2010, 07:29 PM

This game 5 Minutes To Kill (Yourself) is in the App Store still.

Go figure.

Anyways, regarding your game I took a look at the screenshots. The toys still look like babies (cartoon babies).

alexy · 02-09-2010, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocotilos

This game 5 Minutes To Kill (Yourself) is in the App Store still.

Go figure.

Anyways, regarding your game I took a look at the screenshots. The toys still look like babies (cartoon babies).

OMG.. What a horrid concept for a game.

**Kalimba** · 02-09-2010, 07:34 PM

Hmm... babies gets rejected so you (a) rename it "Bubbas", (b) depict toy dolls, some of which have dark skin, and (c) wonder why Apple outright rejects it?

Perhaps because you appear to be based outside the USA you don't know this, but "bubba" is a highly derogatory term for people of African descent.

BTW, I have no tolerance for violent acts -- cartoon or otherwise -- involving children, so good on Apple for rejecting this. :|

alexy · 02-09-2010, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalimba

Hmm... babies gets rejected so you (a) rename it "Bubbas", (b) depict toy dolls, some of which have dark skin, and (c) wonder why Apple outright rejects it?

Perhaps because you appear to be based outside the USA you don't know this, but "bubba" is a highly derogatory term for people of African descent.

BTW, I have no tolerance for violent acts -- cartoon or otherwise -- involving children, so good on Apple for rejecting this. :|

Thanks for your input Kalimba. Yes, I'm in Australia, and the thought had crossed my mind about it being offensive, but I couldn't find anything conclusive of this (only in my mind of Forrest Gump).

Would you have tolerance if these were animals of some kind rather than toys?

**Kalimba** · 02-09-2010, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexy

Would you have tolerance if these were animals of some kind rather than toys?

In the context of the game you've written, I'm not sure even animals would be tolerable. The issue is that these things -- whatever they are -- appear to be flung from a burning building. So if anyone -- be it me, a reviewer at Apple, or a potential customer -- can empathize with the "thing", the game could be considered offensive.

Personally, I dislike cats, so I'd be OK with cats falling from the building.

alexy · 02-09-2010, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalimba

In the context of the game you've written, I'm not sure even animals would be tolerable. The issue is that these things -- whatever they are -- appear to be flung from a burning building. So if anyone -- be it me, a reviewer at Apple, or a potential customer -- can empathize with the "thing", the game could be considered offensive.

Personally, I dislike cats, so I'd be OK with cats falling from the building.

That's the thing. Even animals have as many rights as people these days which is why I went with toys rather than pets/animals. Since these are just things and not living beings.

Let it be said that I am a father to two young children, and don't agree with violence against children either. Having said that, the intention of the game is to 'SAVE' the toys, not hurt them. This is the empathy portion of the game, to want to save them.

rocotilos · 02-09-2010, 08:04 PM

But since Apple already rejected it, the only easy route to get your app in the appstore is just to change it to other stuffs.. how about bundles of money? that'd be nice. nobody like seeing money get burnt. =p

eyefone · 02-10-2010, 03:37 AM

Amazes me how apple seem unable to see the irony of forcing their sandal wearing lentil world view down everyones throats!

Innovation/free speech/art cannot thrive in a world of apples making.

Let us write our apps and let the market decide if it wants it, or apple you write the darn things yourselves.

**Kalimba** · 02-10-2010, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyefone

Amazes me how apple seem unable to see the irony of forcing their sandal wearing lentil world view down everyones throats!

Innovation/free speech/art cannot thrive in a world of apples making.

Let us write our apps and let the market decide if it wants it, or apple you write the darn things yourselves.

The problem here is that when a developer does something controversial, the media/public are too ignorant to see this. Instead, who does the big finger of blame get pointed to? Apple, of course. (Case in point: Baby Shaker app.)

So, for better or worse, Apple has good reason to control what does and doesn't end up in the App Store.

eyefone · 02-10-2010, 09:00 AM

I concede the point that it is apples reputation potentially at stake when allowing software from 3rd party exclusively on their branded products.. and I can well see the need for app reviews within the context of ensuring consistency of user interface elements (icons do what is expected etc)

But there is a balance to be struck. It seems to me they are absolutely terrified of causing offence to anyone regarding anything. Being offended doesn't actually harm anyone, and different people are offended by different things. If the app is not for you, don't buy it. There is a real danger of the app store consisting of nothing but cuddly, fluffy, vanilla durge.

The vocal 'offended by anything' minority should not be able to snub out the creative efforts of the majority.

Why not some middle ground where apps that apple consider borderline have a disclaimer attached which shows on install? something of that nature. Banning 'just in case' someone unreasonable gets 'offended' is stifling the app store, which in turn stifles effort put into the platform.

It's a problem that needs addressing. Where are the political satire apps? I forsee iphone like technology becoming massive, and right now apple are at the forefront of that. They are setting a precedent that disallows free speech. How are they going to handle publishing newspapers that have columnists criticising the politicians of the day on the ipad? Is a political cartoon allowed in a publication but not an app? What sense does it make?

TunaNugget · 02-10-2010, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalimba

Perhaps because you appear to be based outside the USA you don't know this, but "bubba" is a highly derogatory term for people of African descent.
|

Hmm, I'm based in the USA and was unaware of this. "Bubba" is a common non-derogatory nickname in the South.

After the "Baby Shaker" debacle, I don't think Apple is coming anywhere near this. At least Baby Shaker had the arguable benefit of spreading awareness that shaking a baby is a no-no.

alexy · 02-10-2010, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TunaNugget

Hmm, I'm based in the USA and was unaware of this. "Bubba" is a common non-derogatory nickname in the South.

After the "Baby Shaker" debacle, I don't think Apple is coming anywhere near this. At least Baby Shaker had the arguable benefit of spreading awareness that shaking a baby is a no-no.

Thanks TunaNugget. I didn't think it was an offensive term looking up on wikipedia.

You're right.. Baby shaker had a good side-effect. Mine is just having fun saving the toys.

It was funny that the guy I spoke to from Apple was insistent they couldn't put onto the app store whether they were Babies, dolls or toys. It's exactly that, they didn't want to get anywhere near it (much to my frustration)

Rudy · 02-10-2010, 09:44 AM

Your game looks easy enough to change the graphics/context to something else without changing too much code or hurting the gameplay.... you should consider that, I don't think the fight with Apple is worth it

alexy · 02-10-2010, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudy

Your game looks easy enough to change the graphics/context to something else without changing too much code or hurting the gameplay.... you should consider that, I don't think the fight with Apple is worth it

You're right. I'm modifying a few spritesheets, etc and re-submitting, but it's just the initial setback that had me going. It was just a matter of deciding what to change it to.

I also wanted some feedback from the community here as well

**Kalimba** · 02-10-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyefone

I concede the point that it is apples reputation potentially at stake when allowing software from 3rd party exclusively on their branded products.. and I can well see the need for app reviews within the context of ensuring consistency of user interface elements (icons do what is expected etc)

But there is a balance to be struck. It seems to me they are absolutely terrified of causing offence to anyone regarding anything. Being offended doesn't actually harm anyone, and different people are offended by different things. If the app is not for you, don't buy it. There is a real danger of the app store consisting of nothing but cuddly, fluffy, vanilla durge.

The vocal 'offended by anything' minority should not be able to snub out the creative efforts of the majority.

Why not some middle ground where apps that apple consider borderline have a disclaimer attached which shows on install? something of that nature. Banning 'just in case' someone unreasonable gets 'offended' is stifling the app store, which in turn stifles effort put into the platform.

It's a problem that needs addressing. Where are the political satire apps? I forsee iphone like technology becoming massive, and right now apple are at the forefront of that. They are setting a precedent that disallows free speech. How are they going to handle publishing newspapers that have columnists criticising the politicians of the day on the ipad? Is a political cartoon allowed in a publication but not an app? What sense does it make?

These are very good points, and I agree with 100% of them. I can't speak for Apple, but I believe that because they've been the ones taking the heat for any controversy surrounding apps in the App Store, they're erring on the side of caution when it comes to the app approval process. But because they've built the App Store and the devices, they're within their rights to do so, unfortunate as it may be.

I suppose that avenues like the Cydia Store are still available to those who want/need 100% freedom of expression.

**Kalimba** · 02-10-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TunaNugget

Hmm, I'm based in the USA and was unaware of this. "Bubba" is a common non-derogatory nickname in the South.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexy

Thanks TunaNugget. I didn't think it was an offensive term looking up on wikipedia.

Hmm... now I'm not sure how I got the idea that it was offensive.

I saw the term "Bubba" and the jokes about stereotypical prison cellmates entered my head. Perhaps I've made an inappropriate association?

TunaNugget · 02-10-2010, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalimba

In the context of the game you've written, I'm not sure even animals would be tolerable. The issue is that these things -- whatever they are -- appear to be flung from a burning building. So if anyone -- be it me, a reviewer at Apple, or a potential customer -- can empathize with the "thing", the game could be considered offensive.

Personally, I dislike cats, so I'd be OK with cats falling from the building.

Try the Kitty Flinger.