As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Booth babes at pax?

1235»

Posts

  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Samyel wrote: »
    The thing I think a lot of feminists forget is that most guys aren't looking at attractive women because of malice or a hatred for females. It just makes us feel good.

    I think a lot of people forget that many people don't like being around chicks blatantly using their sexuality as a marketing tool because it makes us uncomfortable--not because we give two shakes what the people around us feel.


    Edit: correction just because that is really not exclusive to females. I feel the same way.

    LewieP on
  • BrokenAngelBrokenAngel Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    LewieP wrote: »
    Samyel wrote: »
    The thing I think a lot of feminists forget is that most guys aren't looking at attractive women because of malice or a hatred for females. It just makes us feel good.

    I think a lot of people forget that many people don't like being around chicks blatantly using their sexuality as a marketing tool because it makes us uncomfortable--not because we give two shakes what the people around us feel.


    Edit: correction just because that is really not exclusive to females. I feel the same way.

    Agreed. The poster of this comment seems to think only the women are offended by the presence of booth babes.

    Also I think a large part of it too is that while if you go to E3 or the Tokyo Game Show ect you expect this kind of degradation, but PAX is about US the gamers, that's why they have the "no booth babes" policy in the first place. And I think a lot of people are worried when they think that kinda "for us" feel might disappear. We don't want it to become another cheap sleazy advertisement like E3.

    Basically the point is, this is a con all about the community, the companies making us feel alienated is kinda going in the wrong direction don't you think?

    BrokenAngel on
    k9mk2carn.pngeleventhdoc2carn.png *Proud Head Girl of Slytherin & Team Red*
  • AtomicFreakAtomicFreak Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I had the impression from Tycho and Gabe, I think at the make a strip panel, that they didn't know there were booth babes. Someone asked them about them becoming the new E3, they said something like 'That's why we don't have booth babes,' and seemed surprised when someone told them they did.

    I don't mind the booth babes in many cases...it's cool to have a photo op with a character from a game, like Velvet Assassin or something. But if they are just wearing next to nothing for the sake of being fanbait (like the Saints Row 2 girls I only saw early friday...then never again all weekend, so I assume they were asked to not be there maybe?) and not in an actual game costume, I don't see the point.

    Forgive me if someone already said some of this...didn't want to reread the whole thread.

    AtomicFreak on
    TheAtomicFreak.gif
    theatomicfreak.png
  • SamyelSamyel Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Agreed. The poster of this comment seems to think only the women are offended by the presence of booth babes.

    Also I think a large part of it too is that while if you go to E3 or the Tokyo Game Show ect you expect this kind of degradation, but PAX is about US the gamers, that's why they have the "no booth babes" policy in the first place. And I think a lot of people are worried when they think that kinda "for us" feel might disappear. We don't want it to become another cheap sleazy advertisement like E3.

    Basically the point is, this is a con all about the community, the companies making us feel alienated is kinda going in the wrong direction don't you think?

    I phrased it the way I did to deliberately run opposite to the male-centric post above it. I think more women than men might feel alienated by booth babes, but that doesn't mean there aren't men who feel the same, or just dislike being marketed to in that way.

    I think BA hits on the point of it for me--PAX is about our community. I don't like the sleazy vibe. The trouble is that it would be really difficult to formulate a policy that's fair. Minimum square yardage of fabric on costumes? Rulers to measure the amount of leg, chest, or torso shown? I just don't see that working.

    Samyel on
    "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity."
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Houn wrote: »
    Hi!
    I'm the Peach girl. Hehehe, yeah that girl with the claws and puppy isn't me. But, I do agree that she looks like me... except she is tan and less attractive than me.

    This post correction brought to you by the Ego-Boost Squad: Because You Shouldn't Be So Hard On Yourself.

    Don't be such a creep!

    (Here's my Booth Babe Quest '08 Album.)

    Stated goal: My quest to get pcis with as many booth babes as possible. All pics courtesy of Brent.

    Number of booths depicted: 4.

    Schrodinger on
  • PorkfryPorkfry Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Booth babes are usually seen more at trade shows than community type events. Early PAX was way more community so booth babes didn't really fit. Now that its getting larger and more trade show like I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. But you need to understand that the exhibitors go to lots of other shows that aren't anything like PAX and as such just as they have their check list of stuff to bring for their demo and booth babes are generally on that list.

    In the Trade show environment the booth babes are there because there is a large competition for those attending to see the games/products. At PAX there really isn't that same competition level, people want to see everything. Hopefully this can be articulated to the exhibitors that they don't need to worry about having "booth babes" in their line items when they're going over the budget for the show.

    Porkfry on
  • BaelzarBaelzar Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    What is this PAX "community" everyone is talking about?

    Readers of the comic? Members on this forum that have > 100 posts? Attendees of PAX? What's the criteria for being a member?

    This forum isn't everyone. Booth babes don't bother me in the least. What makes a gaming show so different than a car show, a boat show, a fishing show, a food show, a boxing match....places where the majority of consumers are male? We're smart, so we don't like sex? We're HARD. CORE. so we don't bother with beautiful women?

    Get over yourselves. Showing beauty is a proven sales technique, and gamers are not eunuchs.

    Baelzar on
    Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
    -P. J. O'Rourke
  • BrokenAngelBrokenAngel Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Baelzar wrote: »
    What is this PAX "community" everyone is talking about?

    Readers of the comic? Members on this forum that have > 100 posts? Attendees of PAX? What's the criteria for being a member?

    This forum isn't everyone. Booth babes don't bother me in the least. What makes a gaming show so different than a car show, a boat show, a fishing show, a food show, a boxing match....places where the majority of consumers are male? We're smart, so we don't like sex? We're HARD. CORE. so we don't bother with beautiful women?

    Get over yourselves. Showing beauty is a proven sales technique, and gamers are not eunuchs.

    You are quite correct, forumers aren't everyone, but they also aren't the only ones who agree that booth babes don't belong at pax. I myself went with a whole group of non forumers, of both genders, and they are a part of the community too. The only "criteria" really is to want to be a part of said community.

    And there's a large difference between PAX and a car show or boxing match. Hell there's a large difference between just a car show and a boxing match, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Yes they have booth babes at their shows, those shows have very little in common with pax. Vegas also has prostitutes, that doesn't mean I want them at my local dance club.

    BrokenAngel on
    k9mk2carn.pngeleventhdoc2carn.png *Proud Head Girl of Slytherin & Team Red*
  • pagerunnerpagerunner Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The thing I think a lot of feminists forget is that most guys aren't looking at attractive women because of malice or a hatred for females. It just makes us feel good.


    Two things:

    - Feminism is not a dirty word, nor is it only employed by women. Occasionally men, too, understand the following point:

    - We're not here just to make you feel good.

    pagerunner on
  • MandaristaMandarista Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oh noes! I feel that Jeckyll/Hide serum kicking in....
    Femi-rant! :D

    Personally, I wouldn't have nearly as much "issues" with using some amount of sex appeal to sell games to gamers if it wasn't so blatantly one sided.
    The assumption that the gamers worth attracting are only male by default is outright aggravating.
    Attracting female gamers, in any way, seems to be a complete non-issue with the majority of developers and their marketing in general.

    If sex does indeed sell, and all that matters is the bottom line, why not broaden the strategy?
    Where were the skimpy dressed men?
    The painted up "pretty" boys? - Don't kid yourselves, well-groomed men in makeup in other forms of media is quite common.
    Funny... I don't recall any even moderately attractive, much less "beefcake" material male booth attendants wearing anything resembling hot pants and overly tight too-small shirts - better yet, why not no shirts at all?

    Yeah right.... :P

    And don't even tell me that the fully dressed, non-sexualized, only vaguely attractive army guys for whatever game it was (don't remember at this point) were some sort of counter-balancing "booth hunks".
    They were not, in any way, shape, or form, blatantly used in the same way the costumed females were.
    And I do mean "used" in in every negative sense of the word.

    It's really just sad, because no matter what the gamers may think of booth babes, to the companies themselves they will always just be mindless primped up trinkets, there solely to look good, draw a crowd, and GTFO when the show is over.
    It's like Heff and his playboy bunnies, or some egotistical macho-man and his trophy wife.
    It just starts to make many game companies, and even the devs themselves look like sexist a-holes.
    That's what makes booth babes disgusting.

    You won't see men "used" to that degree at any game expo, car show, or fight....
    Because men are the "real" target consumer for these companies, and the women are just there to stand around looking pretty as if they were only props.

    Regardless of how many panels they host about female gamers, the real female gamers are still a joke to many.
    As Sumi put it: "women connected with gaming either belong in a skanky suit behind a booth or under a paper bag" - or, as far as some are concerned, not there at all.
    Just hang a banner across the booth saying: "Female gamers not wanted - go look elsewhere".
    That's the sort of impression they imply when the send out the "bikini armor prancers" to do laps around their booths.
    Do a Google search for Leipzig videos and you'll see how sleazy the companies are willing to get for the sake of sales.
    Some people simply do not want PAX to turn into that kind of debacle.

    It never ceases to amaze me how completely blind so many game companies, devs, marketing personnel etc. are to that concept....
    They'll hold interviews and podcasts over "how to attract more women gamers" left and right, and then cut to their review of the "newest, greatest DOA ever! Now staring even more of Kasumi's cleavage, with independent jiggle technology!"
    Duuurrrr.......

    Besides, if they worked so darn hard on all that "awesome next-gen" technology, why do none of the men, even the ones in loincloths or baggy pants "jiggle" independently like that? :winky:

    Mandarista on
    Screw Frodo..... TASSLEHOFF LIVES!
  • VThornheartVThornheart Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Baelzar wrote: »
    What makes a gaming show so different than a car show, a boat show, a fishing show, a food show, a boxing match....places where the majority of consumers are male?

    EDIT: I wanted to make a little preface here really quick. My post's a bit long, I wanted to make sure you know that I wrote it in the spirit of conversation, and not to start a flamewar... as I imagine yours was as well. I've found that, historically, when someone writes a long post about a controversial subject people tend to assume that it's the start of a shouting match... so just know that the post below is in the spirit of conversing more, and not about insulting or stomping on you, or anything of that matter. That being said, my response follows. =)

    I think you're mistaken in your analysis of the situation and why people don't like the concept of booth babes at PAX. People, like me, who feel booth babes don't have a place here feel (at least I feel this way, others can differ from me if desired) that they don't have a place at ANY kind of expo.

    I'm not saying "hey, these booth babes should be at the car show next week, not here." I'm saying that I don't care if it's a 'proven sales technique', it's a cheap plug. It's utterly unrelated to the quality/attributes of the product, demeaning to a portion of the target audience (see Mandarista's excellent response above), and it shows a disrespect for us as an audience if they believe that we'll have a genuinely greater interest in their product simply because there's an attractive person selling it (which, even if fiscally true from an immediate perspective, STILL reflects negatively on gamers as a subculture, and reflects that the company doing this advertising believes in that negative image... more on that later).

    Your post seems to imply that the only decision that should matter as to whether booth babes are a good decision for PAX or not is entirely financial in nature (In this case, I'm referring to the part about the "proven sales technique"). Sure, they might push more product with that technique... but like so many aspects of Capitalism, you're asking the "can" without thinking about the "should".

    Can you sell your product that way? Sure! As you said yourself, there's many men who will allow themselves to be won over with the unrelated and tangential appeals to sex and beauty, so it may very well make financial sense. Indeed, just as you said, there are more men than women who are into gaming, and indeed many men in general fall for that kind of advertising.

    Should you sell your product that way? My response would be an unqualified no. Ask yourself why there are more men than women who are into gaming, into cars, into all of the things you mentioned in your post above. It isn't because the subject itself is inherently more "Masculine", that's a load of bollocks. It's because a culture of masculinity (that is, exclusionary or even objectifying of women) developed AROUND it, for... you guessed it... purposes of marketing.

    Marketing in that way is perpetuating the vicious cycle that makes women wary of gaming in the first place and perpetuates the negative stereotypes about the gaming community. A two-fer, all so that some companies can push a little more product over the counter... never realizing that the de-objectification and welcoming of women in any given industry would vastly increase the available pool of people who could be potentially sold to.

    Anyways, that's how I feel about this issue personally. The fleeting financial benefits of unrelated sexualized advertising for a product - any product - is temporary, and vastly outweighed in my opinion by the concerns stated above AND the fact that the inclusion of women (rather than the ostracism of them) would help profits in the long run rather than harm it to boot. So even regardless of the other implications above, even fiscally it is of questionable nature to exclude an entire gender for the purposes of selling more to the non-excluded one.
    We're smart, so we don't like sex? We're HARD. CORE. so we don't bother with beautiful women?

    Get over yourselves. Showing beauty is a proven sales technique, and gamers are not eunuchs.

    No one's making the points you're arguing against here. No one has said they don't like sex. No one has said they don't appreciate beauty. In fact, no one has even said (or implied) that they feel the way they do because they're somehow smarter than someone else, and no one has implied that this discussion is taking place because we're members of some "HARD. CORE." or "elite" crowd.

    So whose argument are you rebutting with this? No offense intended, but I don't see where you're pulling these arguments from. It feels like you created these arguments so that you'd have something easier to rebut against.

    The fact is that all of these points were irrelevant, and would've been so *even if* someone had actually made parts of the argument you constructed. Your argument implies (correct me if I'm wrong) that if a person likes sex and beauty, then they must accept the existence of booth babes. It's a gross oversimplification of a problem that has wide-reaching implications. You can't boil this issue down to an "either you like sex, beauty, and booth babes or you're a 'eunich'" either-or here. The reasons why people don't like booth babes have nothing to do with whether they like sex, beauty, etc... in general. They have to do with the implications of booth babes: what they mean to the female gaming community, what they mean to perceptions of the gamer community, what they mean to gender roles in general for that matter. Much more complicated issues than just "why can't we appreciate 'beautiful women'?".

    tl;dr

    I respectfully disagree with your points, as well as your depiction of those who oppose your viewpoint. =)

    ****

    In an unrelated note...
    pagerunner wrote: »
    The thing I think a lot of feminists forget is that most guys aren't looking at attractive women because of malice or a hatred for females. It just makes us feel good.


    Two things:

    - Feminism is not a dirty word, nor is it only employed by women. Occasionally men, too, understand the following point:

    - We're not here just to make you feel good.

    Thank you. I was attempting to find a way to express my displeasure with that argument, and I couldn't find words for it. You put it succinctly, and far better than I could've. =) The fact that women exist for more than just the pleasure of men is (or should be) a cornerstone belief for anyone interested in the equality of genders.

    VThornheart on
    3DS Friend Code: 1950-8938-9095
  • BigRedBigRed Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    tl:dr

    :P

    BigRed on
    <MoeFwacky> besides, BigRed-Worky is right
  • VThornheartVThornheart Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    BigRed wrote: »
    tl:dr

    :P

    (bows his head in shame =) )

    There, I added a tl;dr summary ;)

    VThornheart on
    3DS Friend Code: 1950-8938-9095
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    What VT said.

    LewieP on
  • BaelzarBaelzar Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I think I'm wrapping my head around your objection. Using sex in marketing is morally wrong, and doesn't have the "correct" effect anyway.

    I'm going to fall back on a million years of human evolution, and the simple fact that sex has been and is used successfully in marketing for nearly every single product that is on the market that targets sexually mature humans. That's right, both sexes.

    Now, you can argue this is morally wrong. You might as well argue that human nature is wrong. Blue sky is wrong. Green grass....etc.

    The only purpose of the booth babe is to get people over to the booth.

    When I say it's a proven sales technique, I'm not talking about some study in a journal. I'm talking about the history of mankind. Asking if we "should" use sex to sell, and claiming that it scares women away.....I'd have to say you're dead wrong. There's more female gamers than ever, and there's more sex in video games than ever. The quality of the product wins out.

    Regardless, this argument could be rendered moot by the simple diligence of the PAX organizers. If they don't want booth babes, then so be it.

    Baelzar on
    Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
    -P. J. O'Rourke
  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Having booth babes present would make some gamers less inclined to go to PAX. It is bad.

    LewieP on
  • PolagoPolago Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    VT, well written piece you've got up there. There's a few things in there that could use some clarification so if you have a moment that'd be rad. Quote and question time!

    Part 1:
    I'm not saying "hey, these booth babes should be at the car show next week, not here." I'm saying that I don't care if it's a 'proven sales technique', it's a cheap plug. It's utterly unrelated to the quality/attributes of the product, demeaning to a portion of the target audience (see Mandarista's excellent response above), and it shows a disrespect for us as an audience if they believe that we'll have a genuinely greater interest in their product simply because there's an attractive person selling it (which, even if fiscally true from an immediate perspective, STILL reflects negatively on gamers as a subculture, and reflects that the company doing this advertising believes in that negative image... more on that later).

    The behemoth had statues of characters at their booths. Nearly every company had some promise of swag. Quite often through the show I heard people saying "did you see the castle crashers statues?" or "Did you get <so and so> swag?".

    How are either of these things any more related to the products on display or any less shallow a marketing pull than say, a model dressed as the main character from a game (reset generation, velvet assassin), and would you be as against them for the same reasons outlined in your quote? It's the same marketing tactic and "shallow" appeal that has nothing to do with product quality, and everything to do with drawing the crowd.

    In a fun Irony, E3 cut all of these things either completely (models, booths) or drastically (swag), yet a large majority of the public responded negatively saying it was a terrible move, men and women alike. Do you support the cuts made at E3 and would you be for the same cuts happening at PAX based on what you've said above?

    Part 2:
    Two things:

    - Feminism is not a dirty word, nor is it only employed by women. Occasionally men, too, understand the following point:

    - We're not here just to make you feel good.

    Thank you. I was attempting to find a way to express my displeasure with that argument, and I couldn't find words for it. You put it succinctly, and far better than I could've. =) The fact that women exist for more than just the pleasure of men is (or should be) a cornerstone belief for anyone interested in the equality of genders.

    You're totally right with the limed point. Women aren't there to make men feel good. In the case of models, they're there out of choice and personal profit. It's actually a cornerstone of feminism and equality where a woman can be their own person, be independently minded, make their own choices, employ any job, and earn the same if not greater wages than a man in the same position.

    It's sad that people choose to ignore that point completely when bashing the concept of "models" and their impact. Nobody accidently falls into modeling as a profession. Nobody suddenly shows up to a gig and "WOOOOPS I DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR THIS YOU PIG!" unless they literally didn't sign of it and then it's a breach of contract or grounds for some heavy legal wrangling. That career is chosen by the person who becomes a model. The women or men in these positions are openly choosing the risk of being objectified in a profession based largely on charm and looks. Oddly enough, it's equality and freedom of choice at work.


    There's a third part I may touch on later though it's somewhat outside the realm of this thread's topic so we'll leave it be for now and stick with these two.

    Polago on
  • PolagoPolago Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    LewieP wrote: »
    Having booth babes present would make some gamers less inclined to go to PAX. It is bad.

    Using E3 as a recent example, having booth babes also makes many people MORE inclined to go as has been shown just about everywhere online that's discussed the changes to E3 and it's past iterations. This also makes it good using your logic.

    Polago on
  • PolagoPolago Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Baelzar wrote: »
    I think I'm wrapping my head around your objection. Using sex in marketing is morally wrong, and doesn't have the "correct" effect anyway.

    I'm going to fall back on a million years of human evolution, and the simple fact that sex has been and is used successfully in marketing for nearly every single product that is on the market that targets sexually mature humans. That's right, both sexes.

    Now, you can argue this is morally wrong. You might as well argue that human nature is wrong. Blue sky is wrong. Green grass....etc.

    The only purpose of the booth babe is to get people over to the booth.

    When I say it's a proven sales technique, I'm not talking about some study in a journal. I'm talking about the history of mankind. Asking if we "should" use sex to sell, and claiming that it scares women away.....I'd have to say you're dead wrong. There's more female gamers than ever, and there's more sex in video games than ever. The quality of the product wins out.

    Regardless, this argument could be rendered moot by the simple diligence of the PAX organizers. If they don't want booth babes, then so be it.

    Thanks bael, this was partially what I was going to mention if i'd touched on a third part in the long post.

    To put it simply, if developers and publishers want more females in the "gaming" or "market" pools, then they should make quality products that actually appeal to them. They have done so in the past however many years (I want to say 5) and the female market share has boomed as a result.

    Fun fact: I'm really interested in the "Imagine: Fashion Designer" DS game because, big surprise, I love fashion design. FANCY THAT!

    Polago on
  • BrokenAngelBrokenAngel Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Polago wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    Having booth babes present would make some gamers less inclined to go to PAX. It is bad.

    Using E3 as a recent example, having booth babes also makes many people MORE inclined to go as has been shown just about everywhere online that's discussed the changes to E3 and it's past iterations. This also makes it good using your logic.

    You seem to use E3 as your basis for comparison on how effective and acceptable booth babes should be, but as we have stated E3 is exactly what we DON'T want pax to turn into. Its a cheap sleazy advertisement and its main target is to appeal to media (which is unbelievably sexist and unrealistic, but that's another topic entirely) not the general "gamer" public. PAX however is a completely different type of con, its entire basis is the premise of the gamer community getting together to celebrate our love of gaming. its like a gigantic house party/meet and greet for gamer geeks.

    No one is arguing that sex doesn't sell, all we are saying is that overall, many of us find them inappropriate and/or offensive. And it negatively effects our respect for the company.

    BrokenAngel on
    k9mk2carn.pngeleventhdoc2carn.png *Proud Head Girl of Slytherin & Team Red*
  • BaelzarBaelzar Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Until PAX organizers remove the expo hall, the theaters and the panels, PAX is much more than a place to meet your online friends. My friends and I filled our days without glancing twice at the lounges, easily. It just never crossed our minds.

    I can see we will never agree. I believe men and women are different, not simply in gender, but on a fundamental level. Trying to make them "equal" is only going to cause misery, because each has strengths and weaknesses that the others do not. Each has needs and desires that the others do not. They are not equal. They are very, very different.

    Maybe one day we'll all be gender free, asexual, and treat each other exactly the same. I hope not. I'm a man. I like women.

    Baelzar on
    Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
    -P. J. O'Rourke
  • MandaristaMandarista Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Baelzar wrote: »
    Until PAX organizers remove the expo hall, the theaters and the panels, PAX is much more than a place to meet your online friends. My friends and I filled our days without glancing twice at the lounges, easily. It just never crossed our minds.

    I can see we will never agree. I believe men and women are different, not simply in gender, but on a fundamental level. Trying to make them "equal" is only going to cause misery, because each has strengths and weaknesses that the others do not. Each has needs and desires that the others do not. They are not equal. They are very, very different.

    Maybe one day we'll all be gender free, asexual, and treat each other exactly the same. I hope not. I'm a man. I like women.
    I think you might be confusing "equal" with "identical" :|
    There are indeed many differences between strengths and weaknesses in men and women, and indeed when comparing between multiple different women, or multiple different men.
    The two sexes are in no way exactly alike, but are every bit as equal as individuals.

    Catering to the "weak sack of hormones" type of consumer at the expense of alienating all others who know how to "just say no" to the E3 brand of sleaze-strategy is only going to alienate many of the people who helped make PAX as awesome as it is in the first place.

    E3 always was for the marketers themselves.
    PAX is supposed to be for the gamers, and many gamers here have repeatedly voiced their displeasure at the implication that they're all either mindless horn-dogs or paper-sack-on-the-head deserving shrews....

    Like it or not, PAX was originally based on this community, and continues to be supported by them.
    Members of this community help organize the events.
    They provide all of its security.
    And they still make up a large portion of attendees - just look in the "how much did you spend" thread to find out how much people are willing to go through to come here form all over the US and other countries.
    Many of them bring their families - PAX is not just limited to 15-35 year old single men - nor should it be!

    It seems fairly obvious that many of them are uncomfortable with modeling PAX after E3, and hopefully that gets heard by the "powers that be" when it comes to making decisions.

    E3, as it was, is dead.
    Deal with it.
    Do you honestly think that if PAX became the hollow marketing frenzy that E3 was that it would be just as "good"?

    When you go from a solid and inviting community feeling to a mass market advertising expo, it just isn't the same.
    PAX was never intended to be E3 in the first place.
    Why try to turn it into something it's not?

    It's a game con, yes....
    Made by gamers. For gamers.
    At least, that's what they try to claim....
    Once PAX slides down the slippery slope of paying brainless models to stand in place and jiggle all day, it's not even about the games any more.
    Keep the soft-core porn at home people, go out and enjoy the gaming community instead.

    Mandarista on
    Screw Frodo..... TASSLEHOFF LIVES!
  • WillethWilleth Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Polago wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    Having booth babes present would make some gamers less inclined to go to PAX. It is bad.

    Using E3 as a recent example, having booth babes also makes many people MORE inclined to go as has been shown just about everywhere online that's discussed the changes to E3 and it's past iterations. This also makes it good using your logic.

    If some people don't want to go because there aren't any booth babes, I don't want those fuckers at my convention.

    Willeth on
    @vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming!
    @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
  • jonxpjonxp [E] PC Security Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Willeth wrote: »
    Polago wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    Having booth babes present would make some gamers less inclined to go to PAX. It is bad.

    Using E3 as a recent example, having booth babes also makes many people MORE inclined to go as has been shown just about everywhere online that's discussed the changes to E3 and it's past iterations. This also makes it good using your logic.

    If some people don't want to go because there aren't any booth babes, I don't want those fuckers at my convention.

    jonxp on
    Every time you write parallel fifths, Bach kills a kitten.
    3DS Friend Code: 2707-1614-5576
    PAX Prime 2014 Buttoneering!
  • BrokenAngelBrokenAngel Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Baelzar wrote: »
    Until PAX organizers remove the expo hall, the theaters and the panels, PAX is much more than a place to meet your online friends. My friends and I filled our days without glancing twice at the lounges, easily. It just never crossed our minds.

    I can see we will never agree. I believe men and women are different, not simply in gender, but on a fundamental level. Trying to make them "equal" is only going to cause misery, because each has strengths and weaknesses that the others do not. Each has needs and desires that the others do not. They are not equal. They are very, very different.

    Maybe one day we'll all be gender free, asexual, and treat each other exactly the same. I hope not. I'm a man. I like women.

    Is it wrong that reading this comment made me think of this? XD

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

    BrokenAngel on
    k9mk2carn.pngeleventhdoc2carn.png *Proud Head Girl of Slytherin & Team Red*
  • PolagoPolago Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Polago wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    Having booth babes present would make some gamers less inclined to go to PAX. It is bad.

    Using E3 as a recent example, having booth babes also makes many people MORE inclined to go as has been shown just about everywhere online that's discussed the changes to E3 and it's past iterations. This also makes it good using your logic.

    You seem to use E3 as your basis for comparison on how effective and acceptable booth babes should be, but as we have stated E3 is exactly what we DON'T want pax to turn into. Its a cheap sleazy advertisement and its main target is to appeal to media (which is unbelievably sexist and unrealistic, but that's another topic entirely) not the general "gamer" public. PAX however is a completely different type of con, its entire basis is the premise of the gamer community getting together to celebrate our love of gaming. its like a gigantic house party/meet and greet for gamer geeks.

    No one is arguing that sex doesn't sell, all we are saying is that overall, many of us find them inappropriate and/or offensive. And it negatively effects our respect for the company.

    Mostly nice things to say, but also something to clarify first:

    -Not once did I use E3 to justify "cheap sleazy advertisement" or to show how "effective and acceptable" it is. I brought it up because it shows people who are actively on the other side of this fence. It's not one sided by any stretch of the imagination.

    -That's cool if you don't like that style of marketing. Some do, some don't, but honestly the VAST majority simply don't mind either way. They see a model and unless something is totally out there, they think "neat!" or "what the fuck?" and that's about it because they're enjoying their day with their friends, playing some show floor games or chatting with an on floor rep.

    Personally, I don't lean one way or the other unless it's needlessly obscene or pointlessly widespread (thong girls at E3 2005? Gtfo). I have a good time at the cons I attend because, as is for 99.9% of people who go, I go for the event's focus itself instead of thinking about models, and I'm sure the same is true for you. Nobody's forcing me to look so I can happily move along and enjoy myself with no harm done, and the same is true for you.

    When the models are getting obscene or out there, then there'll be a real issue because of the show being intended for ages 13 and up (or adult accompanied if younger). As long as models are more dressed up than attendees who cosplay it won't be a real issue.

    Polago on
  • PolagoPolago Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Willeth wrote: »
    Polago wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    Having booth babes present would make some gamers less inclined to go to PAX. It is bad.

    Using E3 as a recent example, having booth babes also makes many people MORE inclined to go as has been shown just about everywhere online that's discussed the changes to E3 and it's past iterations. This also makes it good using your logic.

    If some people don't want to go because there aren't any booth babes, I don't want those fuckers at my convention.

    When you have a convention you can keep them out.

    PAX is a convention owned by Penny Arcade, and attended by the gaming community. It's not your convention, it's not my convention, it's not little timmy's convention, it's for the whole community and owned by PA. Anyone who enjoys games or related stuff of any ilk is just as qualified to attend as you or I.

    I totally get what you're saying and it's cool, but good lord find a better way to say it without coming across as possessive.

    Polago on
  • VThornheartVThornheart Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    My apologies for the late replies, both today and tomorrow I'll be running a garage sale (selling all my worldly posessions for the big move, yay! =) ), so I won't be on until about this time of night. =) I am glad that we're continuing this discussion, it brings up several interesting issues and points!
    Baelzar wrote: »
    I think I'm wrapping my head around your objection. Using sex in marketing is morally wrong, and doesn't have the "correct" effect anyway.

    I'm going to fall back on a million years of human evolution, and the simple fact that sex has been and is used successfully in marketing for nearly every single product that is on the market that targets sexually mature humans. That's right, both sexes.

    Now, you can argue this is morally wrong. You might as well argue that human nature is wrong. Blue sky is wrong. Green grass....etc.

    The only purpose of the booth babe is to get people over to the booth.

    When I say it's a proven sales technique, I'm not talking about some study in a journal. I'm talking about the history of mankind. Asking if we "should" use sex to sell, and claiming that it scares women away.....I'd have to say you're dead wrong. There's more female gamers than ever, and there's more sex in video games than ever. The quality of the product wins out.

    Regardless, this argument could be rendered moot by the simple diligence of the PAX organizers. If they don't want booth babes, then so be it.

    Indeed, I do say that it's morally wrong, for the reasons I cited... Your opinion (and do correct me if I'm wrong: I may simply be misunderstanding you) seems to be summarized as "it's been going on historically, so why stop now?" Correct me if I'm wrong in that analysis, but that seems to be what you're saying with the above statement.

    If I am reading it correctly, I need only point to slavery as an example of something done "throughout history" until we finally wised up to the fact that it was oppressive (in that case, of a race of people as opposed to a gender). Allowing something merely because it has historically been allowed seems like a tenuous position. But as you said, we may simply fundamentally differ on this point... which is okay. =)
    Polago wrote: »
    VT, well written piece you've got up there. There's a few things in there that could use some clarification so if you have a moment that'd be rad. Quote and question time!

    Part 1:
    I'm not saying "hey, these booth babes should be at the car show next week, not here." I'm saying that I don't care if it's a 'proven sales technique', it's a cheap plug. It's utterly unrelated to the quality/attributes of the product, demeaning to a portion of the target audience (see Mandarista's excellent response above), and it shows a disrespect for us as an audience if they believe that we'll have a genuinely greater interest in their product simply because there's an attractive person selling it (which, even if fiscally true from an immediate perspective, STILL reflects negatively on gamers as a subculture, and reflects that the company doing this advertising believes in that negative image... more on that later).

    The behemoth had statues of characters at their booths. Nearly every company had some promise of swag. Quite often through the show I heard people saying "did you see the castle crashers statues?" or "Did you get <so and so> swag?".

    How are either of these things any more related to the products on display or any less shallow a marketing pull than say, a model dressed as the main character from a game (reset generation, velvet assassin), and would you be as against them for the same reasons outlined in your quote? It's the same marketing tactic and "shallow" appeal that has nothing to do with product quality, and everything to do with drawing the crowd.

    But you see, the statues and characters are both (A) in direct thematic consistency with the game itself and (B) don't generally represent an oppressive force. The difference between booth babes as a way to draw a crowd and statues/decor/swag as a way to draw a crowd is that the former alienates, segregates, and stereotypes a gender (and, by consequence, us as gamers), while the latter is a much more harmless manner of encouraging people to attend your booth. What I am saying is that it is the combination of irrelevant draw and oppressive forces that makes booth babes particularly distasteful in my opinion.
    In a fun Irony, E3 cut all of these things either completely (models, booths) or drastically (swag), yet a large majority of the public responded negatively saying it was a terrible move, men and women alike. Do you support the cuts made at E3 and would you be for the same cuts happening at PAX based on what you've said above?

    Again, I would cite the fact that booth babes and the booths/swag itself are very different things. Booths and swag, as long as they themselves aren't demeaning in the same way booth babes are, is a benign form of advertisement. I would go so far as to say that booth babes are an (perhaps unintentionally) malicious one.

    Part 2:
    Two things:

    - Feminism is not a dirty word, nor is it only employed by women. Occasionally men, too, understand the following point:

    - We're not here just to make you feel good.

    Thank you. I was attempting to find a way to express my displeasure with that argument, and I couldn't find words for it. You put it succinctly, and far better than I could've. =) The fact that women exist for more than just the pleasure of men is (or should be) a cornerstone belief for anyone interested in the equality of genders.

    You're totally right with the limed point. Women aren't there to make men feel good. In the case of models, they're there out of choice and personal profit. It's actually a cornerstone of feminism and equality where a woman can be their own person, be independently minded, make their own choices, employ any job, and earn the same if not greater wages than a man in the same position.

    It's sad that people choose to ignore that point completely when bashing the concept of "models" and their impact. Nobody accidently falls into modeling as a profession. Nobody suddenly shows up to a gig and "WOOOOPS I DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR THIS YOU PIG!" unless they literally didn't sign of it and then it's a breach of contract or grounds for some heavy legal wrangling. That career is chosen by the person who becomes a model. The women or men in these positions are openly choosing the risk of being objectified in a profession based largely on charm and looks. Oddly enough, it's equality and freedom of choice at work.

    There's a third part I may touch on later though it's somewhat outside the realm of this thread's topic so we'll leave it be for now and stick with these two.

    Indeed, the woman has a personal choice to make, which is why no one in this conversation (or at least, I wouldn't... I suppose I can't speak for others) would blame these women for the problem. It would be utterly irrelevant to blame them, as if they had no choice or as if this was actually their fault. Indeed, they are getting paid for something they are choosing to do, no one is faulting them for that.

    However, we can fault the companies who seek them out, for the same motivations and with the same negative consequences that I stated in my previous post (which I won't bother to repeat here for the sake of brevity =) ).

    Now, the post above that I was responding to was really having to do with an entirely separate issue: the opinion that women are there for men's pleasure. I wasn't seeking to condemn the women who made that choice in my response (which I had hoped was clear, and if it wasn't I hope this will clarify), but rather to condemn that "women exist for men's sake" opinion (which I feel was expressed through the "We just enjoy it" comment, or whatever it was that sparked that sub-thread. =) ).

    Anyways, hopefully that helps to clear up some of the ambiguity in that issue.



    EDIT: Also, if it helps...

    Polago wrote: »
    Willeth wrote: »
    Polago wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    Having booth babes present would make some gamers less inclined to go to PAX. It is bad.

    Using E3 as a recent example, having booth babes also makes many people MORE inclined to go as has been shown just about everywhere online that's discussed the changes to E3 and it's past iterations. This also makes it good using your logic.

    If some people don't want to go because there aren't any booth babes, I don't want those fuckers at my convention.

    When you have a convention you can keep them out.

    PAX is a convention owned by Penny Arcade, and attended by the gaming community. It's not your convention, it's not my convention, it's not little timmy's convention, it's for the whole community and owned by PA. Anyone who enjoys games or related stuff of any ilk is just as qualified to attend as you or I.

    I totally get what you're saying and it's cool, but good lord find a better way to say it without coming across as possessive.

    I don't think her intent was to sound possessive, merely to express her shared distaste at the practice and those who support the practice to the point that the exclusion of booth babes would be a cause of trauma/anguish for them. (BA, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong =) It seemed to me like your statement was more "making an example" than "literally demanding that someone not come to PAX".)

    Indeed, as much as I don't like to exclude people, if someone was actually upset because booth babes *weren't* at PAX, I might have to suggest that they had an unhealthy attachment to the notion of booth babes... again, rooted in my previously stated opinions. I can see where some people of differing opinions would not *mind* the presence of booth babes, but I would admittedly have a hard time accepting the opinion of someone who would be angered by the lack of them. Maybe it's because that would express a worldview so utterly separated from mine that I could not form an initial ground upon which to come to some level of understanding.


    Also Polago, if I may, I think I know what your third point was going to be (correct me if I'm wrong).... "What about booth decorations/swag that is oppressive in nature to women?" Though that is indeed the topic of another issue entirely (having more to do now with the subject matter of games in general, and its reflection in all forms of advertising), I feel the same about that as I do about booth babes. Not that this is the subject at hand here, but I could feel the question on the tip of your tongue and felt like I might as well answer it while I was here. =)

    VThornheart on
    3DS Friend Code: 1950-8938-9095
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    ...why doesn't someone just e-mail Mike and Jerry and ask them? They're the ones with the no booth babes policy.

    Houn on
  • VThornheartVThornheart Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Houn wrote: »
    ...why doesn't someone just e-mail Mike and Jerry and ask them? They're the ones with the no booth babes policy.

    Good point!

    They seem to never respond to my E-Mails. Hey Porkfry, maybe you can ask them about it when you see them? I'm sure they have a bit to say on this topic as well!

    VThornheart on
    3DS Friend Code: 1950-8938-9095
  • OfficerOfficer Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    So... who likes hugs? And long walks on the beach? I sure do. Those things are swell.

    Also, consider PMing Robert Khoo and Amber Fechko about this instead, those two are goto guys for Mike and Jerry and they are on the forums.

    Officer on
  • VThornheartVThornheart Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Aye. It has been an interesting conversation. Hopefully everyone's gotten some interesting discussion and understanding of both sides from it.

    I was talking to someone else about this thread, and I think it all really boils down to some very deeply rooted worldview differences... ones which we will all never resolve here, but the very fact that we're discussing them is good for the hope of future understanding. Anyways, that's how I feel about it. =) It's definitely been an interesting conversation to me, and in the end I'm glad we've had it. =)

    VThornheart on
    3DS Friend Code: 1950-8938-9095
  • PolagoPolago Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Words

    Thanks VT! This clarifies your points and stances quite nicely. There's aspects I definitely don't agree with the whole but it's better to know exactly where you stand on a personal level. Also, no, part three had nothing to do with what you mentioned at the end of your post, especially since it was indirectly covered and queried in part one. Good attempt though!

    Word of advice for you (and Mandarista). Try to avoid overstating things and accidently putting words in other people's mouths (and consequentially a foot in yours) when you debate.
    Maybe it's because that would express a worldview so utterly separated from mine that I could not form an initial ground upon which to come to some level of understanding.

    Really now? Really?It's tough to believe that when the opinions questioned in that context were "offput by their inclusion" vs "offput by their exclusion", not "apex parameter vs neratile exodus". It's not an alien concept. Hell, it's not even remotely close to a "worldview". It's as much a world view as liking Junior Mints.

    Regardless, now we know where your opinion is coming from. Thanks!

    Polago on
  • PolagoPolago Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Officer wrote: »
    Also, consider PMing Robert Khoo and Amber Fechko about this instead, those two are goto guys for Mike and Jerry and they are on the forums.

    Considering Robert, Mike and Jerry have all made their opinion of this issue known publicly and stated the official PAX stance on the issue, there's not much else to ask them unless you enjoy prying.

    Polago on
  • WillethWilleth Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Polago wrote: »
    Willeth wrote: »
    Polago wrote: »
    LewieP wrote: »
    Having booth babes present would make some gamers less inclined to go to PAX. It is bad.

    Using E3 as a recent example, having booth babes also makes many people MORE inclined to go as has been shown just about everywhere online that's discussed the changes to E3 and it's past iterations. This also makes it good using your logic.

    If some people don't want to go because there aren't any booth babes, I don't want those fuckers at my convention.

    When you have a convention you can keep them out.

    PAX is a convention owned by Penny Arcade, and attended by the gaming community. It's not your convention, it's not my convention, it's not little timmy's convention, it's for the whole community and owned by PA. Anyone who enjoys games or related stuff of any ilk is just as qualified to attend as you or I.

    I totally get what you're saying and it's cool, but good lord find a better way to say it without coming across as possessive.
    If some people don't want to go because there aren't any booth babes, I don't want those fuckers at our convention.

    Look, PAX is about the games. If people are coming simply to see women in bikinis then they do not share the interests of the expo's intended audience.

    I doubt those people even exist, anyway.

    Willeth on
    @vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming!
    @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
  • LewieP's MummyLewieP's Mummy Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    KittCandi wrote: »
    I just don't understand how hard it would be to find attractive gamer girls out there to help out at these booths. I'm pretty sure they'd be willing to be paid less too, especially if it's a game they actually play.

    So its not enough to exploit women because of their perceived attractiveness, sack that they have brains, lets pay them less just so we can ogle at them. You have to be joking.

    Baelzar wrote: »
    What makes a gaming show so different than a car show, a boat show, a fishing show, a food show, a boxing match....places where the majority of consumers are male?

    I think you're mistaken in your analysis of the situation and why people don't like the concept of booth babes at PAX. People, like me, who feel booth babes don't have a place here feel (at least I feel this way, others can differ from me if desired) that they don't have a place at ANY kind of expo.
    tl;dr

    I respectfully disagree with your points, as well as your depiction of those who oppose your viewpoint. =)

    pagerunner wrote: »
    The thing I think a lot of feminists forget is that most guys aren't looking at attractive women because of malice or a hatred for females. It just makes us feel good.


    Two things:

    - Feminism is not a dirty word, nor is it only employed by women. Occasionally men, too, understand the following point:

    - We're not here just to make you feel good.

    Thank you. I was attempting to find a way to express my displeasure with that argument, and I couldn't find words for it. You put it succinctly, and far better than I could've. =) The fact that women exist for more than just the pleasure of men is (or should be) a cornerstone belief for anyone interested in the equality of genders.


    Thank you, VT, you're spot on.

    If I choose to wear figure revealing clothes, that's my choice. If I am employed to wear revealing clothes merely to promote a product, that is using my physical attributes to sell that product.

    Willeth wrote: »
    If some people don't want to go because there aren't any booth babes, I don't want those fuckers at any convention.


    Too damn right.

    You either accept that the sexploitation of women to sell a product (or for anything else, really) is wrong, or you don't. You might read what the majority of people (both men and women) have said in this thread, and change your mind. Or you might not.

    It is a simple issue, its about the exploitation of some of us, because others like to exploit. Yes, I do mean that; booth babes objectify women, turn us into sex objects, put on earth so that men can use us. Its bad enough that so many products do that, without having it rammed down our throats at PAX.

    What is obvious to me is that the majority of people on this forum do not like having booth bimbos at PAX. The organisers have stated in the past that they also don't want them. Ergo.

    LewieP's Mummy on
    For all the top UK Gaming Bargains, check out SavyGamer

    For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints

    "The power of the weirdness compels me."
  • I like tea biscuitsI like tea biscuits Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    pagerunner wrote: »
    The thing I think a lot of feminists forget is that most guys aren't looking at attractive women because of malice or a hatred for females. It just makes us feel good.


    Two things:

    - Feminism is not a dirty word, nor is it only employed by women. Occasionally men, too, understand the following point:

    - We're not here just to make you feel good.

    While I agree that we're not here just to make anyone feel good, that doesn't mean that we don't - or that it's wrong for people to take pleasure out of seeing attractive women.

    I take pleasure out of seeing attractive people. I also take pleasure seeing happy people, and nobody would say there's anything wrong with that. They're not being happy for me, but I can still take pleasure out of it, guilt-free.

    I agree with Polago that these women choose to be in this profession of modeling/representative. And the companies hire people with the skills and innate characteristics that bring in profit - this is their job, to make money.

    As Baelzar said, sex sells. I didn't see any women in "bikinis", just women in character (or t-shirts) - like many of the cosplayers I saw, their outfits were revealing. If you want to change them using "booth babes" - stop going to those booths. Numbers tell them how effective their booths are - how many people visit, how many people buy. If they continue to bring in lots of people, fault the customer not the company.

    I like tea biscuits on
  • OfficerOfficer Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    So, we have a new kitten at my house. She is super cute, but very clingy and won't leave me alone.

    Kittens are cute guys. Cute enough to end wars and heal the breaks in our society.

    I mean look at her. She loves everyone.

    image001.jpg

    Officer on
  • MandaristaMandarista Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Officer wrote: »
    So, we have a new kitten at my house. She is super cute, but very clingy and won't leave me alone.

    Kittens are cute guys. Cute enough to end wars and heal the breaks in our society.

    I mean look at her. She loves everyone.

    Oh! You fiend!
    I notice it's a "her", and all you want us to do is ogle how cute she is!
    That's straight up exploitation I tell you! :lol:

    Shame on you Recruit.....
    I'm sorry, but for the sake of fairness, you will now have to supply us with pics of equally cute male kittens to fawn over!
    More adorable kitten pics!

    Edit: Nevermind, I'll provide my own.
    miyavi8mgia3.th.jpg
    You know, I can't tell which one is more adorable, the kitten or Miyavi (the guy holding him - yes, that's a guy :P)

    Mandarista on
    Screw Frodo..... TASSLEHOFF LIVES!
  • Moe FwackyMoe Fwacky Right Here, Right Now Drives a BuickModerator mod
    edited September 2008
    Once again, Kittens save the day

    thread over cut below

    Moe Fwacky on
    E6LkoFK.png

This discussion has been closed.