Aside from the article being horridly written, what do you think?
My first thought was that the people denouncing it as barbaric should probably spend a bit of time thinking about the etymology of the word barbaric (i.e. from “barbaros,” being used to describe pretty much anything from outside Greek culture) before using it in this context.
Other than that, er, a pat on the shoulder for having huge balls to do that in this day of nearsighted PC-ness and a smack to the face for being cruel.
I’d like to know who stood up in the meeting and said “Hey, let’s sacrifice a goat!”
Other than that, is it really that big of a deal? Do people think that animals willingly give up their muscle for our sustenance?
But from a business point of view, was it really that wise to be so gorey when there are people out there blaming you for a lot of adolescent dumbassery?
The current, official story is that the goat was pre-slaughtered, that it wasn’t done onstage.
That said, I’m growing increasingly concerned with Sony’s Marketing department. Whatever happened to advertising the damn game, rather than making some sort of advertising spectacle? This extends to all of Sony’s European marketing- there’s some seriously screwed up European Sony ads out there.
I must admit, though, I wish topless models would be part of Sony advertising on this side of the pond.
There was a bit of a mild fuss about this on the gaming sites (notorious for jumping to conclusions), but people are forgetting about it fast. When the news broke (odd that it took three months for us to find out about this considering it was apparently a press event, but whatev), Sony clarified a few things. Namely that the goat wasn’t slaughtered specifically for the party, but rather acquired already dead from a butcher. And I think they mentioned that no one ate anything out of the carcass either.
Gross? Yes. Outrageous? Nah.
Hey, now we know where Akklaim’s marketing department went!
I’m more surprised that they left the boobies in the picture, but blurred the goat’s neck. Then again, it’s a British publication. Tits = OK, animal guts = verboten.
And frankly, this stunt, if true, is in very poor taste. Apart from the tits.
I feel it could have used more tits.
I can live with that.
Anything is better than the creepy baby doll from their PS3 commercials.
Probably a little late for this, and anyone who has read this far down should have figured this out, but…link is NSFW.
Well it would be SFW in the UK. The Daily Mail is a “respectable” paper.
That’s NSFA (Anywhere).
I’ll just note that the girl in the picture is showing as having some sort of red wrap around her chest and that the picture is safe for work. I’m not sure if they’re detecting that I’m not in the UK and putting up a different picture or if they editted the column.
I believe it’s paint.
Yeah, I think that’s latex paint. Nipples are clearly seen, at least in the version of the pic I saw. I’d say it’s work safe, but I work in a fairly easy-going office.
How do I get a job as that kind of painter?
Sadly, you have to start out with finger- and toenails and kinda work your way up and down. Not saying you can’t enjoy that part, though 
Damn. I thought for a moment you were talking about finger painting breasts, before moving on to painting using a brush. I doubt I could graduate such an education.
nm