Dog Wars

Judging from our inbox this morning, more than a few of you have discovered the Dog Wars app. We'd been hoping it would slink back into the depths from which it slithered, but such is not to be the case.

Dog Wars, which some sort of horrific canine RPG, is doing its best to stoke the fires, announcing itself as "A GAME THAT WILL NEVER BE IN THE IPHONE APP STORE!!!" And you know what? Apple's App Store is better off for it. The developer, Kage Games, also wants you to know that "if you have a bug up your butt about the game concept, remember:"

  1. It is just A VIDEO GAME
  2. Perhaps one day we will make gerbil wars or beta fish wars for people who can't understand fantasy role play games
  3. Just because something is illegal in real life in certain countries, does not mean it is illegal to make a song, movie, or video game about it (looking at you XDA Developer Forums... deleting our beta testing thread and banning our account?!)
  4. Just go slingshot some virtual birds to kill some virtual pigs.
  5. Go complain to someone who cares about Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Weed Farmer, Smoke a Bowl (these two are listed in the top 15 of casual games on Android Market) and maybe even Sierra's Leisure Suit Larry from 1987.
  6. This is listed as a HIGH MATURITY app, and does NOT violate the Terms of Use with the Google market in any way!!!

A few of the one-star comments left in the Market:

  • "This represents the truly revolting world of dog fighting, dogs are still stolen daily for fights. Remove it now!" - Alex
  • "Hope you people get prison time for making this app." - devon
  • "This is pretty awful... Downloaded this just to say how very wrong this is, both in real life and in fantasy." - nonfinite

And a couple of e-mails we've received:

  • "This is so sick I can't believe it! Have you people learned nothing from
    Michael Vick???? Way to encourage this disgusting violence against innocent animals.....studies indicate that most serial killers who hurt animals move on to people. This is SICK. WTF android????!!!!!" - Diane
  • "I cannot believe that you as a leader in this industry would promote dog
    fighting with an app!! Dog wars should be removed from the android market! This is very disappointing for me and many others to see that Android would do this!" - Dawn

We're not sure if the 50,000-250,000 download mark is because people downloaded the free beta just to leave 1-star comments (let's hope so), or if it's really that popular (let's hope not). But we do know this: If we were Google, we'd probably find some sort of term of use that Kage Games has broken -- or invent a new one -- and fast, and get this sort of thing out of the Market.

Download links are not after the break. Here, however, is the the developer's e-mail address: Let 'em know how you feel. And tell 'em we sent ya.

There are 337 comments

silverfang77 says:

Certainly not a game I would download.

I agree, this is some seriously messed up stuff. I also never liked the dogs that you call in when playing COD WaW. They should leave hurting animals out of video games...period.

Really??? It is okay to kill fake people in a video game but the minute you have to kill fake dogs you get upset... You are just silly I hate to say

babybear293 says:

thank you!

briankurtz79 says:

You guys have got to be kidding me?! Just downloaded this game. Its an RPG like Mafia wars. Its certainly not mortal kombat with dogs. Ppl offended by this need a life. Its definitely a stupid game. But not offensive. I'm sure if it was bum fights no one would care.

foxpacific says:

Since they conveniently forgot to include it... Here's the link to that game:

BOUGHT! Gunning down real people in video games is fine though? Right? GTFO

Murph5150 says:

It's a video game. If you don't like it, don't download it. It's really that simple. People piss and moan too much.

ScottJ says:

True. But I wonder if you would be so flippant if the game was "Come Rape Murph5150's Sister".

I don't think the app should be pulled from the market as that would be hypocritical but it deserves all of the condemnation it receives.

JeffDenver says:

Do you also have a problem with Deer hunter? If not why?

The double standards I am seeing on this issue make me sick. The whole appeal of this OS is that Google is not trying to play nanny. If you want to not be offended by apps you dont like, go to the iPhone and let Steve Jobs think for you.

there is a difference in hunting a wild deer which is a game animal, and torturing and killing dogs(which is what fighting them is). The K9 is man's best friend and befriended man when he first came down from the trees. We have been partners in life with them for thousands of years and they deserve our protection.

trenen says:

That's the American concept. Other countries see dog fighting as cultural, as well as killing them and hanging their carcass in the streets for human consumption. Don't take the American mentality as the global norm because it's not. Additionally, do some research on the history of dogs and man. It was not a friendly "greetings earthling" evolution. Man captured and tortured wild dogs and bred and trained them into the animals we have today. Go up to a wild dog and try to pet it. Your ideas will change real quick.

actually dogs are wild animals that we over time are trying to make house pets. That is why lots of dogs snap and bit people and some times killing them. Dogs were never put on this earth to be our companions

JeffDenver says:

Ah, so killing animals for sport is ok when it is deer, but not when it is dogs. Got it. Yeah, that doesnt sound hypocritical at all.

KCRic says:

How is it hypocritical? You shoot a deer - it dies.

You fight a dog, it suffers a slow painful death. If it doesn't die then it's beaten and tortured by the handlers then forced to fight again if it's not killed by them. Let's not even bring in the bait dogs and the breeding females that have their teeth pulled so they can't bite and then tied down so they can't fight the forced intercourse. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

So how is it hypocritical again? Do you even know the definition? You may want to before you start using big words you don't understand.

I own a pit you pathetic waste of air, this is a very personal topic and if you really want to go blow for blow on this topic I promise you'll lose.

foxpacific says:

I've owned several pits too. I loved those dogs and would NEVER purposely fight them, though they've been into scraps with each other and neighbor dogs on the rare occasion they got loose. Even had the one that shared my bed with me for years die after getting into a fight with another one of my dogs. Best dog I ever had too... Can't get more personal than that...

Still... I downloaded the game and have been playing with it all day. What's the big deal? It's a game, they aren't my dogs or anybody's dogs really, they're make believe dogs...

foxpacific says:

The grandma I just cut with a chainsaw in GTA needs your protection too...

EdwardsNH says:

OK, JeffDenver's argument is way off, but there is a HUGE difference. It's one thing to kill an animal you are going to eat. It's quite another to make animals fight each other, so we can bet on a winner!

JeffDenver says:

Um...are you trying to argue that sport hunting is done because they need the meat? Do hunters not have access to grocery stores?

This equivocating is pathetic. You people have a completely arbitrary double standard.

trenen says:

Overpopulation is dangerous to nature, that is why gaming exists and only during certain seasons.

tjhop4292 says:

Overpopulation is only dangerous to human's concept of nature.
Nature gets along just fine when we let it be. Survival of the fittest allows species to rise and fall, that is how nature works. Humans try to moderate nature and say what is best for it.

Don't you just love the directions this controversy takes and the ignorance that goes along with it? lol

trenen says:

It's not Dangerous in properly uninhabited areas, however it is dangerous in the rest of the world where there is civilized population. Restriction of resources and lack of predators to maintain the natural order causes problems.

lbjames231 says:

Overpopulation of deer is dangerous to human's because we've killed off the natural predators that used to live here.

If anything, overpopulation of the human race is dangerous to nature. At the rate humans are multiplying, we're going to run all of our resources into the ground. Take an environmental biology course and you'll see.

As for the game, I have no issue with the game. It doesn't even SHOW dogs fighting other dogs. People are so uptight nowadays it's unbelievable.

reticent67 says:

Overpopulation my ass... I'm a deer and elk hunter and that shit is strictly for sport and the thrill of the hunt.

You really want to talk about overpopulation? Take a leisurely stroll through south central (or any local ghetto) and see how many packs - literally packs - of "wild" dogs are running around the street. Hundreds of them. We call them ghetto elk.

Bottom line, it's just an F-ing game. It's only as big of a deal as you make it. If you don't like it, just go smoke some weed, put on a Sarah MacLoughlin CD and drive around in your Prius talking about how great Obama is, you damn hippies! Then pull your tampon out.

IIJBII says:

This is sick. This is a case where I would want Google/Android to step in and ban the app. I could care less how the developer tries to justify this game, it's wrong on so many levels. The implication of comparing this to Angry Birds is a joke. What's next for this developer "Beat your wife and kids"?

spokenwordd says:

Ban? Really? So basically let's remove the choice from grown people as to whether they want to play this game or not. To me the game concept is not interesting so I won't be downloading it but if others want to then I'm OK with them playing it.

There is already an app market that censors your choices, it's called the Apple app store!!

Funny part here about all the outrage is that I would bet that these same people play games like Black Ops or other shooters that involve you know, shooting people. I am one of those people because it's a damn video game but I also don't care about a dog fighting game.

This reminds me of the people who are all about saving the baby whales or chipmunks or some rare tree but don't think that snuffing babies in the womb is an amoral and worse "choice".

Sorry, got a bit off topic but these crusader types who are not at least consistent in their outrage just kill me.

ScottJ says:

...or the people who are pro-life, but at the same time pro war and pro death penalty.

spokenwordd says:

Just to address this reply... EVERYONE should be "pro" meaning for, life. But people who are anti abortion believe that God given rights to life extend to those that have not yet passed through the birth canal. That's all.

Everyone has a right to their opinion but to argue that a person that has taken a human life in the act of murder (not in self defense)is on the same bearing with a person that has not yet been born is a bit dishonest.

In the case of war, it is a necessary evil. If you think that there are not times when a nation must take up arms to defend its people or sovereignty then you are a bit naive. No offense intended here just saying that a person who is "pro-life" can also be for capital punishment and supportive of a war as a final resolution and not violate the core of their belief system.

A person that is pro-abortion, anti-war and also against capital punishment yet for the preservation of animal life against all odds does not have a homogeneous argument logically. To think that all life is sacred except unborn humans is a protected belief system but not a logical argument.

*** Note that "pro-choice" people are also pro-life but not for baby humans. Just for animals, trees, convicted criminals and in the theater of war.

I would defend your right to express this opinion but I just think it is wrong.

This is way off topic here and I apologize but chose to answer this inconsistent line of thinking.

ScottJ says:

Not all life is the same. It's a simple as that. A featus is not equivalent to a fully viable human being.

spokenwordd says:

What do you base the strength of your argument on? Do you not know that if a person murders a pregnant woman that they are charged with two counts of murder?

Abortion is legal for political reasons NOT legal reasons.

ScottJ says:

"Abortion is legal for political reasons NOT legal reasons."

There's a legal basis for it. Read the Roe V. Wade decision.

It all comes down to this: "Don't like abortion? Don't have one."

The same folks that are against abortion do their best to make sure that children in need are stripped of any aid from the government. "Love the fetus, hate the child".

spokenwordd says:

To test your argument insert the word murder into your prose. "Don't like murder, don't commit one". Utterly illogical and ridiculous. This is like saying that a murder is a private matter between a murderer and his victim.

Either the life of a child in the womb is life and therefore has inalienable rights or it is a pimple. Your argument does not address this. It addresses privacy and choice. If applied to those of us that are out of our mother's wombs it sounds utterly crazy and it is.

As for government financial support for the bad decisions of others that is another matter. The nanny state is less than 50 years old in America and it does not work. Do you know that 51% of black pregnancies in America end in abortion (60% in NYC)? Look it up. Think that is good? As a black American I'll tell you that it is not good for my community.

Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion.

Since 1973 here are the stats on black deaths in America:

203,695 - AIDS
306,313 - Violent Crimes
370,723 - Accidents
1,638,350 - Cancer
2,266,789 - Heart Disease
13,000,000 - Abortion

Yay "choice"!!!!! It is illegal to kill yourself aka commit suicide in America. The police will use necessary force to stop you and actually have you committed to prevent this. Yet here you come along with the liberal crowd and tell me that it's great that a people that number 38.9 million in the US and make up 12.9% of the population have had 13 million abortions (which is 36% of ALL abortions)and you think all is OK?


Also, we are flawed human beings. If you give a group of people benefits for a lack of good choices THEY WILL TAKE IT. And at a central level it therefore reinforces the behavior.

Why did not getting pregnant get so hard after the nanny state started in the 60's? So hey let's open the wallets and pay because people can't afford to not make bad choices. Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ScottJ says:

You can't complain about a "nanny state" and advocate making abortion illegal. Reproductive freedom is fundamental.

spokenwordd says:

Actually you can have a nanny state where abortion is illegal. The two have nothing to do with one another. Although nanny states tend towards "personal liberties" that always affect everyone elses wallet.

true reproductive freedom is making good choices in the first place and being able to plan your family from a position of strength such as being married and in a solid financial position. You can't have immaturity in your decision making and expect to be free.

I grew up on welfare and food stamps. We were not free! It was the new slavery. Our decisions were limited by the hand of government. I am now a proud father and IT professional that works for a Fortune 500 and earns a great salary. I am not only financially free but because of it I am free to help others like my sick mother and father from being a drain on your pockets.

Life has consequences and it's funny that liberals always want to put the shackles of dependence of people under the guise of protection and freedom.

True freedom is gained by discipline. Ever seen an athlete that has incredible abilities that did not require great discipline to achieve? Nope. An Olympic gymnast had to spend many years not going to parties or playing with Barbies to glide across the mat. Such is life. Humans achieve the greatest dignity when they are able to make choices from a position of strength.

turbofan says:

My thoughts as I've read your comments, spokenwordd: if you ran for President, I would vote for you. Why?

1. You ask honest questions.
2. You make SENSE. Scottj has contradicted himself many times by the end of this first ppage of comments, but I don't see that in your writing. You are clear and straightforward.
3. You understand the reasoning behind things. You understand the point where the "it's a free country, do what you want" people and the "better remove it because its offensive and hurts animals crowd" need to meet. Neither solution is sufficient.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, I've enjoyed reading them.

spokenwordd says:

Thank you Turbofan for your kind words. It is good to know that my comments were clear and concise. Much appreciated.

I don't agree with it, but that is the logical conclusion of evolutionary theory, and it seems to be increasingly popular in developed nations. It's hard to argue that anything has higher value than anything else when we all came from the same scum. This is why games like this can, and should, be allowed to exist. It's why some feel that the old, the mentally ill, the unborn, the handicapped, and people of color should be exterminated. Of course, the problem becomes: WHO determines the different values of life? You say a fetus is not equivalent to a human being, but the fetus might beg to differ. Of course, you'll win that argument because, as in any such discussion, the stronger one, or the one with the most guns wins. Goooo Hitler!

ScottJ says:

"You say a fetus is not equivalent to a human being, but the fetus might beg to differ."

The fetus doesn't have the capacity to contemplate their exitence.

It's not equivalent. This whole thread is about drawing lines. I draw my line regarding abortion at viability. So do most Americans.

I'm not arguing about abortion. And I said that, while I don't agree with it, I know your kind of thinking is just the way most people think. I used the fetus example because that's what you mentioned, but you can change it: "Hitler and many Nazis didn't believe Jews were equivalent to human beings, but the Jews might (and did) beg to differ." Well, Hitler was the strongest, so a few million Jews lost that argument...tough cookies!

I don't have a problem with your point of view as long as it's consistent. There isn't an animal on the planet aside from human beings that can "contemplate their existance." If that's the standard by which something is afforded the right to life (and who made it so? You?) then every animal on this planet aside from us is fair game; kill 'em all!

And here's the kicker: your ability to contemplate your own existance is utterly meaningless. Every thought proceeding from that mass of grey matter in your head is nothing but a series of chemical and electrical reactions; no better, and no worse than any other animal's. Your thoughts just don't matter. Humans are on a pedestal because they put themselves there, not because they have any inherently greater value than any other animal. Unless, of course, you're the religious type, and believe someone greater than us made us the pinnacle of His creation...but that's another story.

Bottom line is: Dog Wars, Angry Birds, GTA...they're all good.

balthuszar says:

the problem with your argument is i do not know anyone that is "pro-abortion." i, myself, am against abortion, but i also am against telling a woman what she can do with her own body.

also, pro-lifers are only "pro-life of the fetus before it is born" once you've been through the birth canal, they could care less about you

ScottJ says:

Bingo! You win the prize!

spokenwordd says:

Hey ScottJ my daughter needs school clothes and I'm planning her college options. I'm going to forward you the bills for this stuff because you are just as responsible as I am for the fact that I conceived my daughter with my ex wife. I know you work for your money and have your own family to plan but it's clear that my responsibilities are also the responsibilities of total strangers.

Put your crap on hold and take care of my needs. Also, I'm thinking of going to the bar tonight and sleeping with the first chick that will leave with me even though I'm not married to her. Not going to wear a condom cause I know you and uncle balthuszar live for this stuff.

She gets pregnant screw it... Either I'll talk her into an abortion (can't let that 51% rate of black abortions get low) or I'll go absentee father and send you the bill for that too. Sigh, this is great for the black community and America as a whole. Tax payers are AWESOME.

Think about it....

ScottJ says:

I pay taxes. A portion of those taxes go to the social safety net. I'm glad that they do as I have an interest in society's welfare as a whole and not letting people fall through the cracks.

You highlight quite adroitly the divide between the conservative and liberal worldview. We believe that there is a place for the commons and such things as social programs to help the least of us. Conservatives believe you are on your own. You are free to subscribe to the latter.

spokenwordd says:

Wrong again.... Currently the break down in America is:

40% Conservative
40% Independent
20% Liberal

People that designate themselves as conservatives are the most charitable people in the country. Also faith based charities are the largest in the world, the majority of which are freely funded by conservative Americans. Ever here of Catholic Charities USA or the Salvation Army?

Conservatives also tithe and donate portions of their incomes every week in churches, synagogues and mosques across the country. Who do you think operates all the soup kitchens, shelters and a large portion of the rehab programs in the nation.

The difference between conservatives and liberals is that we do not believe that the government has any business dictating where this money goes. The constitution agrees with us.

Americans take care of their own. We do not need the government creating costly programs that fail.

What the hell do you think people did before 1960? Survived just fine... My grandparents could tell you all about it, God rest their souls.

UFd0L says:

1) The constitution does not 'agree' with you. So Medicare and Welfare programs are unconstitutional? That would be a surprise to almost any Supreme court in the past 200 years.

2) You are absolutely correct that conservatives give more than liberals, and liberals should be ashamed about that. But this being true doesn't make a left-wing policies any less (or more) desirable.

3) What happened before 1960? Poor elderly:

4) Liberals don't want 'big-government' in and of itself, they want it because American's can't take care of their own no matter how much you say they do and the evidence goes WAY beyond #3 above.

balthuszar says:

where did i say that the average schlep's responsibilities are everyone's? in fact, i said the exact opposite

spokenwordd says:

You accused "pro-lifers" of only caring until the baby is born. Ever note the amount of Christian adoption agencies? These "pro-lifers" are saying hey have the baby and we will get a family to take care of him/her. People in the US are getting babies overseas due to the lack of available children.

Everyone thinks abortion is easier.

balthuszar says:

i'm not talking about your general christian population, i'm talking about people that kill doctors for performing abortions, bomb clinics that perform abortions

spokenwordd says:

Sorry Balthuszar my friend. I read in haste and misunderstood your position. My apologies.

balthuszar says:

its all good spokenwordd, i understand that these discussions can get quite heated at times...apology accept, and i'm sorry if i said something in such a way that it could have been mis-interpreted

KCRic says:

Let's see:
glorify being a hero in combat

glorify harming an innocent animal for pleasure

Nope, I don't see the difference.

Aside from the fact that us soldiers don't actually enjoy war - but you wouldn't understand that sitting behind the comfort of the best military in the world. Enjoy the protection.

foxpacific says:

Well, I don't agree with your point of view, so I think they should ban YOU...

neevz says:

I'm with the developer on this one. Its a game. No different from a normal violent game in which people are killing or fighting each other. Some people just love bitching at things for no reason.

Telperion says:

Is it tasteless? Yes. Do I think dog fighting is awful? Yes. Would I download it? No.

Do I support the right for people to say things and do things I dislike, even especially that I dislike, on the basis of it not violating the terms of service? Of course.

Being a low brow, tasteless, awful application does not justify removal from the Market.

Xenx says:

Exactly my thoughts as well. I don't want lines redrawn whenever someone finds something they don't approve of. It sets a very bad precedent.

ScottJ says:

OK. So is there any limit then? I don't think this app qualifies for a ban, but do we really want someone to create Rape Hero to try and test the limits?

JeffDenver says:

Yeah, there is a limit, and Google has defined that limit. The developer says they are complying with all of google's requirements. This game is rated for adults only.

People are not complaining about this app because it is violent (lots of games are violent) or because it has sexual content or whatever...they are complaining because they just think Dog Fighting is bad. Specifically.

So what? Some people think hunting is bad, but I dont see anyone whining about Deer Hunter. What makes this app so different?

WhitePhone says:

I hate this kind of sh*t. Pointless.

acidbuzz3 says:

I have no problem with the concept of this game. Its no different than killing a hooker, whacking a mole, or even killing little evil piggies with birds. Its a video game, its not real! If you think this should be banned from the market, then there are thousands of other games that should be as well because they depict illegal acts.

The problem is that its a boring, poorly made game.

Kushan says:

I absolutely agree that dog fighting is sick and anyone involved with it should be put in prison (probably for life), but I disagree that this game is anything to get upset about.

We play games involving killing and murdering people all the time. How many WWII games have there been, that glorify war and, in some cases, belittle what a lot of people fought and died for? Yet nobody's bothered. Look at games like prototype, where you're practically applauded for mudering thousands of civilians. What about Grand Theft Auto? Much the same and yeah, although there was a bit of outrage, people were fine with it.

So why is it ok to (virtually) kill humans, but not animals?
It doesn't make sense to me. I have no interest in this app, but I have no problem with it existing.

tobywong says:

Yeah it's a complete double standard. People happily play GTA but video game violence against dogs = get your torches and pitchforks. I don't know what that says about society when a dogs life seems to carry more value than a humans.

Saturn2K says:

To be completely fair, this is like saying "I can't believe we make special laws protecting children!" Children and animals are incapable of doing evil and are also unable to protect themselves from violence or abuse.

While I believe this app is ridiculous and terrible, and I would think less of anyone who had it installed, I don't believe it should be removed from the market. You can't really draw a good and fair line of what goes too far in this regard.

ScottJ says:

I agree. Social condemnation is the right route to fighting this type of stuff.

scoty024 says:

"Children and animals are incapable of doing evil..."

Really? Were you home-schooled?

Children commit evil acts every day. For an example, go to the playground of your local school and watch the kids who get bullied every day. Evil acts are condoned in animals and children because of how they were raised and the conditions they were forced to live in... but that makes the evil and cruel deeds no less evil or cruel. If you think it does go ask the crying kid you just watched get bullied if he sees the difference.

I agree with your stance on the application, but I can never condone people playing the 'all children are pure and can do no wrong' card. All of us have a memory of something we did when we were young that we will never forget and will always wish we could take back. If something we did when we were young was bad enough to remember and still regret 20+ years later, how are any of us logically say "Children are incapable of doing evil".

No offense, just a different way of looking at it.

ScottJ says:

He overstated a bit. However, the reality is that we do try to protect children in our society, and rightly so. Though they may not all be innocent, they certainly are more innocent than the adult population at large.

Maybe a more nuanced comparison would be how we think of soldiers versus civilians. We have different standards regarding how we treat people who are organized into a fighting force against us, and the civilian people from the same country. Context does matter. When I play CoD and shoot a guy, that guy is armed and trying to kill me. I don't think I'd play the game if it's primary objective was the killing of innocent people. I know I know. There was a offline mission in CoD MW2 where you mow down innocent people in an airport. I didn't like that mission. In addition, your character was undercover and also ambivalent about having to participate. The context wasn't the glorification of killing innocent people.

foxpacific says:

So if your make believe character participating in a make believe war in a make believe world is morally justified, that makes it ok? What about the make believe families that lost the make believe husbands and fathers that you shot with your make believe bullets and rocket launchers. Who will wipe their make believe tears at their make believe funerals?

That makes you better than those of us that took our make believe chainsaws and cut up the make believe prostitutes then took our make believe cars and ran over the make believe grannies who were even in the make believe cross walks, then got chased by the make believe police, and had a shoot using a make believe shotgun. Even stole the make believe ambulance that showed up to help the injured make believe people lying in the make believe streets. Even dipped in a make believe house to have some make believe sex after it was all over... Don't make me tell you what would have happened if we EVER got our hands on one of those make believe helicopters... oh boy, you'd really look down on us then.

Did you catch the subtle hint that it's all make believe?

Murph5150 says:

IIJBII- You're a liberal idiot. Let's allow Google to make decisions FOR us rather than make our OWN adult decisions..... Are you insane? If you are incompetent to decide for yourself what is right or wrong then perhaps you're too immature to own a smartphone. I make my own decisions because I have the ability to make my own free choices. If you don't like what you're watching, change the channel.

strikethree says:

And how do you know he or she is a liberal?

Last time I checked, conservatives are the ones who want to BAN abortions and gay marriage. I suppose those aren't adult decisions?

Frankly, I haven't really reviewed this app -- nor would I want to-- but there should be a line. (racism, rape violence, etc.) However, this app doesn't seem to be openly promoting animal/human cruelty more than any other violent game out there.

I think that Google needs to implement some sort of age limit with these apps. Even though most smartphone owners are old enough to decide for themselves, we are moving towards an age where even kids have smartphones.

trenen says:

What good is setting an age limit going to do? People with a nanny mentality like you are what brought up the annoying and useless age verification systems used on entertainment websites. Any kid that has a basic knowledge of math can bypass those...or just pull a random date of their ass to make themselves 87 years old. The real solution is the parents. Get them involved in what the kids are doing, lock the devices to prevent downloads, etc. Problem solved. Stop depending on corporations like Google and the government to do your basic parental jobs. The skills you should have learned before becoming a parent.

jg274105 says:

I'm usually not one to get up in guns about this stuff, but even to me this is offensive.

For those who do find this objectionable, I HIGHLY recommend looking it up in the market and reporting it.

Telperion says:

I support rooting, or "jailbreaking", as does the Library of Congress. Say Verizon and AT&T get enough power and push for Google to remove apps that encourage or facilitate rooting, ROM usage, and circumventing carrier restrictions. Do you support that?

Wake up people, you can't support highly restrictive policies only on the applications with which you disagree, because eventually those restrictive policies will come full circle and be applied to something you support.

nyc_rock says:

never would have known it existed if I hadnt read about it here.

Guess that goes back to the old saying, "any publicity is good publicity".

jjperez1920 says:

people need to grow up this is a game. So you fight some dogs in a app wow. there are games on the market with much lower morals. like one that let you kill "PEOPLE" or commit suicide. people just love to follow the flow of what some other people feel or say is just and right if this game is wrong and other games that allow you to do worst thing are OK then this world is lost. I for one am fine with it and i dont believe in dog fighting i have rescued two pitbulls from such a life which is probably more than all these crybabys have ever done for a dog in there life. STOP LOOKING TO BE ACCEPTED

chefkeyser says:

I love dogs, Hell, I love animals. I'd never play this. But that doesn't mean it should be banned. I'm a combat veteran and I could care less about people who get their rocks off playing fake killer on XBOX360.
The comparison between this and
1. Call of Duty
2. Pokemon
3. Angry Birds
are all relevant comparisons to draw.

No need to get on a pedestal if you're the kind of person who snipes people between the eyes in Fallout or beats up hookers in GTA.

This is one of those times I really want to believe in Karma. The developer may have the right to make and offer this game but rights work both ways,Google should be just as free to turn away any Apps from it's Market they feel are inappropriate.

Landon1983 says:

Except then we're basing it off Google's opinions. Who's to say their opinions are right or wrong?

IIJBII says:

Murph5150 - IIJBII- i guess I'm a "liberal idiot". Like it or not Google does make some decisions for us. It's reality. If they didn't they wouldn't pull "harmful" apps. Using your theory it's your own adult decision to download these. It's my opinion and didn't attack anyone here. You stand up for this and the developer can defend his app, but I can't give my opinion? Interesting. I'll go back to being too immature to own a smart phone.

spokenwordd says:

My honest question here IIJBII is simple... If you feel that the dog fighting game is "harmful" do you also feel that the hundreds of games that feature human on human violence are also harmful?

If your answer is no then why not? Last I checked violence against animals is illegal but more importantly human on human violence of any type is also illegal.

Again, if no, then what is the harm in digitally fighting dogs if digitally murdering humans is not harmful?

This is an honest question....

IIJBII says:

Appreciate the honest question. I didn't say it was harmful, nor do I feel qualified to say if this is harmful or not. I know there is research on the topic of violent games/movies to people but I'm not a psychologist so I cant truly say.

I understand what people are saying with Google not stepping in, but, I think there is a fine line with apps like this. Am I right, no, its my opinion and doesn't hurt anyone.

The post was just my opinion. I didn't attack anyone or mean to cause a "comment war".

My thought is dog fighting is real and sick. Using the same theory would people stand up for a game based on some recent tragedies such as 911?

spokenwordd says:

I agree with you that the game topic is not expedient yet it perplexes me that there is outrage against dog fighting yet the same people have no problem with digital human violence.

I won't play the dog fighting game but I also have no issue with video games that depict violent acts involving human beings. Why slam the devs for this slice of the violence pie yet give all the other devs a pass?

ScottJ says:

It's the context. Nobody has addressed my point about a hypothetical app called "Child Killer". That would be human versus human violence but the context would be different.

mike340t says:

google kindergarden killer, a flash game.. it exists and only a matter of time till we see converted to android

spokenwordd says:

Should be allowed although it is a deplorable idea... This is not the UK where thy have a Magna Carta. We actually have rights under the constitution.

The game concept is deplorable but should be allowed.

Ever play Assassin's Creed? Should that be banned? How about Hitman 47?

Both sold a ton...

Under the law a child in or out of the womb, adult, or elderly life are all the same! Same penalty... murder is murder. Your scenario appeals to our inner parent.

ScottJ says:

"Should be allowed although it is a deplorable idea... "

I agree. I applaud you for at least being principled.

"Ever play Assassin's Creed? Should that be banned? How about Hitman 47?"

Yes. Assasin's Creed and its sequels have been some of my favorite games. Guess what though? You get punished for killing innocents in the game. Context again.

By the way, I never said the game or any other game should be banned. I've been consistent. What I hate is people who claim to be principled about this but really have their own secret line they draw.

spokenwordd says:

There is no secret line here ScottJ. From line one I advocated the freedom of the consumer to decide what was a game they will play.

It is things like Hate Speech laws (pastors can't say homosexuality is a sin) that are aimed at eliminating competing ideologies or Hate Crimes laws that seek to make the value of the life of a gay or a black greater than the life of a white.

As a black man I'm offended that I might be offered a job, a scholarship or college admission based on my skin to equalize some wrong done to my great grandfather. Murder is murder. How can a criminal get more time because they were white and killed a gay or black because of race or sexual preferences?? Is not all murder based on hate?

Not to mention that black on black murder makes up over 93% of black murders. Should that be a Hate Crime?

THESE are examples of hidden motivations....

trenen says:

Very well said.

Rigelian says:

Hate speech laws don't stop pastors from saying that homosexuals have sinned and hate crime laws don't provide special protection for any race. This is nonsense. Hate crime laws add levels of punishment for crimes where the target is selected 'because of their race or in some jurisdictions their sexual orientation'. Thus hate crimes can be committed against whites or blacks, homosexuals or straights.

kil187 says:

Another crappy game, nuff said. It shouldn't be banned or removed and this article is biased in itself. As many others have stated, there are a boatload of other games that promote killing, maiming, and all sorts of violence, how is this one any different? You people that want it removed are idiots and are probably poor parents. Go complain somewhere else. The author is probably one of those people too.

scoty024 says:

I have to say, I am curious how many of the people who downloaded this game to give it a 1-star rating and complaint have played (and enjoyed) Grand Theft Auto.
I can't fathom how it is that we've developed such a screwed up double-standard:

1. It's okay to play and enjoy video games where we can beat up hookers, shoot and kill our 'enemy', and dismember zombies with chain saws and baseball bats.
2. It's not okay to play and enjoy video games where we animals are injured.

That being said, be advised that I think the mere idea of this game is vile. I just like being the devil's advocate and looking at things from all sides. The side that seams most prominent to me in this circumstance is that the majority of people find that human on human violence is acceptable whereas human on animal violence is not... this seams backwards to me. But then again, I'm sure there are plenty of the 'animals are people too' hippies out there.

I'd much rather learn that my son secretly killed animals as a form of entertainment that learn that he secretly killed people. How are animals more important than people.

Again, this is just my opinion for argument sake. I personally don't let my kids play any of the killing free-for-all games... only the FPS games where they kill Nazis... cause animals are more important than Nazis.

spokenwordd says:

Brilliant reply scot024.... Brilliant

Very good opinion. It IS a messed up world we live in. Human life is irrelevant, but heaven forbid you squash a bug!

ScottJ says:

"I'd much rather learn that my son secretly killed animals as a form of entertainment that learn that he secretly killed people. How are animals more important than people."

You'd have a point if there were an equivalent game out there. Comparing the game to FPS's is missing the point.

What if there were a game whose sole goal was to kill children? Let's call it "Kid Killer". You're a pedo serial killer whose goal is to rape and kill as many children as possible without getting caught by the police. You get extra points for the creative ways you dismember and defile your victims body. Would you really be making the same argument then? Would you find that analogous to Call of Duty or GTA at that point?

I don't think it should be banned but am worried about the people who seem incredulous regarding the controversy surrounding the subject matter of this app.

By the way, you can't disclaimer you post by calling the came "repugnant" or "vile" and then defend it by saying it's not any different than Call of Duty or GTA. Would you call those games "repugnant" or "vile"? You want to receive the social acceptance that comes with being "disgusted" with this sort of game while at the same downplaying the games subject matter by comparing it to other mainstream games.

foxpacific says:

So, as a closer comparison... how is the idea of this game different from Pokemon???

You raise and "train" animals to beat the sh*t out of each other...

ScottJ says:

If you cannot discern the difference then there's something deeply wrong with you.

trenen says:

But there isn't a difference. One is more reality based and one is fantasy. They are both games and they both share the same concept...raise animals to beat the shit out of each other so the owner can get rewarded and their animal can become the "the champion".

foxpacific says:

And I say this as someone who has downloaded the game and actually played it.... NO I CAN'T...

Why don't you explain the difference so everyone can see how flawed your theory is???

dcpanther says:

I like you.. thank you.. I have seen that as the ourpose of pokemon for over a decade

scoty024 says:

So according to you I cannot compare this game to a FPS because the people you're killing in those games are adults... however I would be able to make a comparison with a game where the victim was a child? So according to you the life of dogs and children are far more valuable than the life of adults? I have to disagree, human life is human life, and human life is more valuable than animal life (according to most people, American law, the Bible, etc.).
And as a matter of fact, I can say the game is "vile" and defend it's right to exist, that is exactly what I did. And as a matter of fact, if the developer ends up making a "Kid Killer" game that falls within all of Google's guidelines for applications, I would also call that game "vile" and further argue is's right to remain on the market.
Additionally, don't take it upon yourself to determine my reasoning for having the stances and making the statements that I do. I couldn't care less for social acceptance and I wasn't "downplaying" anything. Comparing this game to any mainstream games simply indicates that I feel those games are vile too. But just because something is vile in my eyes doesn't mean I'm not allowed to argue it's RIGHT to exist.

ScottJ says:

You posted a bunch of strawman arguments in a jumbled mess. I never said any of things you suggest. Reading is fundamental.

Chipsndip84 says:

Exactly garment69, I probably would have never heard of this game if it wasn't for Android Central. "But we do know this: If we were Google, we'd probably find some sort of term of use that Kage Games has broken -- or invent a new one -- and fast, and get this sort of thing out of the Market." - Wow, are you serious? You want Google to just start making up reasons to delete apps that certain people dislike?

dcpanther says:

i think Phil needs an iPhone, there Apple will protect him from apps other people don't like.

IIJBII says:

Is everyone missing the part of the story that says "Let 'em know how you feel"? It's my opinion. If you don't like it or agree that's fine.

trenen says:

And did you miss the part of the article where there is demand to pull the application and complain to Google? Funny how your rights are only applicable when they benefit you.

IIJBII says:

I didn't miss it at all - When did I mentioned my rights? Not sure how stating my opinion on this benefits me. As a side note; I didn't attack anyone on my post and understand what others are saying. It doesn't mean I agree with them but I respect their view/opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

**Lets bring this battle to the forums!*** kidding.

trenen says:

Sorry, double post.

dlterry says:

Sure, get rid of it. Then get rid of Angry Birds. it is just criminal what they do to those poor little birdies.

Or, people could just mind their own frigging business, download the apps they like and leave other people the F alone. Censorship is a very slippery road that always leads to a place you don't want to live in.

To everyone saying this should be banned, please move to a country that doesn't have free speech! I'm glad that you have such a high self esteem that you feel your opinion overrides the rights of everyone else in the whole world to choose their own entertainment. If this was real of course it would be a different story, but it's ones and zeros folks, get a frickin life and mind your own business, seriously. If you want to get upset about something, become an activist and fight real injustice and tragedy, not a stupid game, it's insulting to people who care about real problems.

ScottJ says:

I don't think it should be banned. However, it has nothing to do with free speech. The 1st amendment only applies to the government. Whether
Google allows this app or not is up to them as a private organization.

trenen says:

I am happy to see there is a self-professed liberal that understands the intention and meaning of the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with the modern interpretation. The purpose of it was the right to speak out against the government and peacefully assemble. It's because of the poor interpretation and classic liberal tainting that we have the problems we have today.

witnercoat says:

There's a name for what you're suggesting Phil. CENSORSHIP. For a lot of us, it's why we left Apple. This app isn't my cup of tea, so you know what I'm doing about it? I'm not downloading it. Yup, kind of like my own little protest. Surprising thing is, if enough people do it, it works.

Glad you added the Dev's email address, it gives people a voice; but to suggest Google should take away this app is just wrong. Kind of sad. You could have used this article to inspire a movement; but instead, you used it to try persuading Google to sacrifice even more of the openness of the Android platform (Thank you very much Honeycomb...).

balthuszar says:

i'm glad he provided the dev's e-mail as well...i e-mailed the dev. in support of his being able to have the app in the market...while i probably will never play the game, nor download is wrong to force the app out of the market

kil187 says:

"But we do know this: If we were Google, we'd probably find some sort of term of use that Kage Games has broken -- or invent a new one -- and fast, and get this sort of thing out of the Market."

For this, Phil Nickenson is and Idiot. Lost any interest from me in reading anything from him in the future.

spokenwordd says:

Phil, I value your opinion and take free speech very seriously but as a writer for Android Central is it not more expedient on hot topics as this to just report the facts and not dive into the opinion pool?

The fact that you seem to honestly feel that this app is somehow harmful to the app market is mind boggling. In poor taste, maybe, but then again I never see pieces like this on games that feature the digital murder of human beings, you know, us. *** As a disclaimer I play those games and am not against them either.

The value of a human life is infinitely more valuable than the life of any animal so this point just leaves me baffled.

ScottJ says:

"The fact that you seem to honestly feel that this app is somehow harmful to the app market is mind boggling."

It's mind-boggling that it's mind-boggling to you. This will hurt the market from a PR perspective as they try to build mind share in the shadow of the Apple App Store. This isn't very hard to understand. It goes with having a marketplace fashioned after the Wild West.

"The value of a human life is infinitely more valuable than the life of any animal so this point just leaves me baffled."

That's your opinion. To me, it depends on the person.

spokenwordd says:

ScottJ, are you against games that feature human violence and murder? Do you feel that the life of an animal is equal to that of a human?

If you answer yes to either of these then I'd expect you to be against apps that are games featuring human on human violence, not play them and think that they are also harmful to the app market.

I'd also expect you not to eat animal meat, wear leather or have furniture made of animal byproducts.

Does your opinion fit your lifestyle?

ScottJ says:

"ScottJ, are you against games that feature human violence and murder?"

I'm not "against" any game. I believe in complete freedom when it comes to media. That's why I've said that I wouldn't ban this game. What I do know is that most people who talk about freedom of choice would draw a line if the subject matter were something they cared about, like killing and dismembering children. For instance, how would all those cons commenting on here feel if there was an app called "Abortion Hero" or "Crucifier" where you get to play a Roman soldier who crucifies Jesus? Just about everyone has their sacred cow, even if they won't admit it. I don't have one? Do you?

"Do you feel that the life of an animal is equal to that of a human?"

It depends on the human.

"I'd also expect you not to eat animal meat, wear leather or have furniture made of animal byproducts."

I actually have been a vegetarian for the last 16 years, so I do walk the walk as much as I can.

spokenwordd says:

Again ScottJ, I appreciate your reply yet there seems to be a disclaimer that folks have where "I'm free to reserve my own subjective judgement where I feel they are applicable".

There are human beings that I think are the scum of the earth do to their crimes and actions of others. BUT, they are entitled to due process and a legal process to determine these factors. I would NEVER extend these rights to any animal under any circumstances. I think animals are wonderful but they are not human beings.

ScottJ says:

"I would NEVER extend these rights to any animal under any circumstances. I think animals are wonderful but they are not human beings."

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I never said that animals were human beings. This is what's called a "straw man" argument.

Do I value some animals over some humans? Yes. I won't apologize for it. It's actually quite logical. If you think evil people should still be held in a higher regard than an animal that has done nobody any harm there's nothing I can say to cure that deficiency in your heart.

spokenwordd says:

ScottJ... You accuse me of a straw man arguement (I was on the debate team in HS and College and have a Th.M.) yet you just confirmed my assertions in your next statement.

Read it in slo mo please:

Here is your EXACT response:

"That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I never said that animals were human beings. This is what's called a "straw man" argument.

Do I value some animals over some humans? Yes. I won't apologize for it. It's actually quite logical. If you think evil people should still be held in a higher regard than an animal that has done nobody any harm there's nothing I can say to cure that deficiency in your heart."

Notice you said:

"Do I value some animals over some humans? Yes. I won't apologize for it."

And you accuse me of a straw man? You just said it....

ScottJ says:

Saying I values specific animals over specific human beings in no way contradicts this statement:

"I never said that animals were human beings."

It's simple really. I forgive you. Not everybody is skilled at rhetorical debate, especially one expecting to read a review of the Asus Transformer not having to engage in nuanced discussion. You are unprepared for battle. I get that.

larrytxeast says:

ScottJ People are more important than animals, to the extent that even Charles Manson is more important than a dog that pulls a child from a burning building.

That isn't opinion, that is FACT. Either you are for humans or you are for animals. If you are for animals, you are in the WRONG. It's not a matter of what your opinion is, it's a matter of FACT. You would be just as wrong as if you tried to argue that 2+8=25.

trenen says:

I can't believe you just said the life of a human is equivalent to that of an animal depending on the human. Sick fuck.

ScottJ says:

So, you have a gun. Hitler and a puppy is before you. You shoot the puppy? You are the fick suck.

trenen says:

What? I would shoot Hitler because he was vial, killed hundred of thousands of people, and more. It's not because I value the life of the puppy over him...I value the lives of everyone else that would be saved from Hitler.

foxpacific says:

Hitler dies no matter what, puppy or no puppy... What does this have to do with the price of cheese in china?

dcpanther says:

No.... That's not a very good argument that it "Hurts the market PR"

The android Market has PR problems because of the lack of IP protection.. and general quality. Start up the market and search "hello World"

And actually, I think Google's Hypocracy in playing Moral Police, would be more hurtful to PR. than a game that has implied violence.

balthuszar says:

two things 1) its a video game, if you want babysat by the people that run the market, get an one is making you download this game 2)if you believe this will co-erce people into the world of dog fighting...if video games were so manipulative, i'd have spent my entire youth in a darkened room, eating glowing pellets, believing i was being chased by 5 pastel ghosts

ScottJ says:

Um, they weren't pastel.

The argument that this app will create more of a market for dog fighting is surely the weakest argument against it and clearly not credible.

I don't think it should be banned. However, I forsee a future where Google will have to make a choice as it's human nature to push boundaries and test limits. Maybe those who think there is no limit truly are amoral and would have no problem with a rape simulator app. I don't know. I do think most feeling adults would likely draw the line at some point. In other words, there is a line for most of us even if this app doesn't cross it.

foxpacific says:

Maybe you can explain... why is it on so many of these comments this dog fighting app is compared to rape?!?!?

ScottJ says:

Easy. I'm trying to determine where people draw the line, if they do indeed have a line.

foxpacific says:

And why would you be trying to do that? Or are you just bored and want to argue with people?

balthuszar says:

i do not think it is up to google to draw the is up to us, the consumer, to draw the line. if a certain app doesnt get x number of downloads maybe the developer will see it as a failure and pull it...what may not offend one person, may offend a different person. and where do you draw the line with that...what if i made the claim that the paper toss app offended me, because it is making life harder for janitors and trees? same concept.

and the quote about video games effecting people was not one of my own, but one i saw on a shirt when i was younger...sorry about calling the ghosts pastel.

ScottJ says:

I assure you that there is a line. Google likes to tout their non-interference policy but there will be an app on there at some point that they will be forced to pull due to public pressure. It's not how I would like things to work, but it's the reality. I just hate people who find no problem with this app and claim there is no line, when in reality they have their own line as yet known only to them.

For instance, I've seen cons squawk about freedom when one of their conservative heroes is chastised but turn around and mount protests against an art exhibit that has anti-religious overtones. Unfortunately, some of my liberal brethren are guilty of similar double-standards.

balthuszar says:

i, too agree with you...however, i will never condemn someone/thing for crossing any line that i myself have drawn...i have a saying...i may not agree with it, but that just means that i wont be partaking in it anytime soon, do as you wish...i wont compare this game to a "rape" game...but i will compare it to may enjoy getting smoking a rock of crack or dropping acid, i do not agree with that, but that does not mean i feel you must not do it...if thats how you get your jollies then go for long as it doesnt effect me, carry on

ScottJ says:

I've never compared it to a rape game. I wanted people to consider their position if such a game existed. Would there be a line, or would their position hold fast.

The point is that most people have their own line, depending on the things they care about. I chose rape because it's almost universally condemned in almost all societies. I'm trying to get the people pretending to be principled libertarians to admit that they have their own line, it just doesn't involve dog fighting.

balthuszar says:

if there were a rape game, i can assure you my position would hold fast...i may find it distasteful, but it is your right to download it or not as you see fit...

foxpacific says:

I wouldn't give a rats @ss if there was a game about raping a baby while taking a deuce in my mouth...

I just wouldn't download it...

Simple supply and demand, there is little demand for baby raping games (I'll use that example since you seem fixated on it), therefore the investment in creating the game will be lost when nobody purchases or downloads it. No demand, will kill the supply.

If this dog fighting app sees little profit then rest assured it won't be something that gets continued development. On the other hand, if people buy/download it there is a demand and they will continue to supply. Let the market decide.

There's your line...

It's not like these apps get pushed to your phone or device, it's your choice to download it or not.

Murph5150 says:

IIJBII- Google makes decisions to protect our devices, not our souls. You can voice your opinion; that's your God given right. But rather than say you disagree with the theme of the game, you go on to assert that Google should censor what we should and shouldn't view by virtue of pulling apps from the market. You are a liberal. You'd rather "larger powers" run your life than you yourself.

kalleguld says:

Please read up on the term Liberal before you use it again. It means pretty much the opposite of what I think you think it means.

xeroslash says:

Oh, wow. I had to double check my bookmark. Thought I logged into White Knight Central for a second.

Deliberately promoting hate mail, AC? Really? Shame on you, Phil.

trenen says:

I Agree... Posting that email address was low ball.

balthuszar says:

i'm glad it got posted...i used it, though not for the reason he probably thinks i should have

dahlheim says:

funny how easy it is to think your readers "tune in" to read an editorial. too much network "news" watching, i'd say. if you don't like the game, don't download it.

Clak says:

Sorry Phil, but you're way off base on this one. As horrible as this is, to censor this would mean we'd have to censor games like grand theft auto (you know, where you beat hookers to death on the street), most military FPS games, hell even horror movies would be censored. I know this is a blog and you aren't exactly a professional journalist, but think before you go posting stuff like this.

ts599 says:

okay so all of you guys who are being total bitches about this game shut up and listen to me!

1. just a game
2. you kill humans in other games all the time why is this any different?
3. deal with it, if you dont like it just shut up and dont say anything
4. you guys just want something to moan and groan about, so stop its not getting anywhere.
5. google most likely will NOT remmove this application
6. so you have no problem killing people in the GTA series or any of the Call Of Duty series of games?
7. go mouth off about something important!

dacp283 says:

Murph youre a little confused in your name calling up there bud. It would actually be hardcore conservative that is pro censorship of this kinda crap not liberals. Liberals are the ones destroying America turning it into a damn nanny state. (that is a term of expression before you start wondering.) Lets not forget, not only adults use the app store AND if I'm not mistaken the goal is to provide us, the end user a quality experience which this app clearly does not represent. Also keep in mind I've fought for your freedom to make uneducated judgments and call names and I believe in those but I also believe when those rights demmoralize the nation or those fighting for it I think those rights should be revoked.

IIJBII says:

Well said. I wasn't trying to get into "who's right" comment war. I was just giving my opinion.

ScottJ says:

"Also keep in mind I've fought for your freedom..."

You were in WWII? Cool. I thank you for your service. Unfortunately, the "wars" since then weren't about protecting American freedom but were orchestrated for other purposes.

trenen says:

Anti-war and vegetarian...I bet you also have an Obama sticker next to a "coexist" sticker and drive a Prius. :)

ScottJ says:

It's actually an Obama magnet. I got it when I gave money to is his campaign in 2008. Also, it's not a Prius but a low-emission Ford Focus. However, you were close.

spokenwordd says:

LOL.... Funny how that stuff is easy to predict.

turbofan says:

What the hell are you talking about? You don't know a single thing about what is or isnt going on over there. I think there are very few who do. Have you ever noticed that the wars greatest supporters are the ones who are FIGHTING it? Does that not say something to the legitimacy of it? While some of the things you've posed are reasonable, you're just soewing stuff man. Just a bunch of political garbage.

So what do YOU think should happen? I mean, do you really have an idea ofof what should really be done? Or are you like so many other Obama supporters I've spoken with who just talk about problems and stuff and say there's a solution BUT NEVER COM OUT AAND SAY WHAT THE SOLUTION IS?? Don't tell me its hope and change. Hope for what, and what & how are we changing?

dacp283 says:

Oh also keep in mind good business does not cater to the few at the cost of the many. Exact opposite so in todays world I can bet it will get pulled as the majority will win and thats how good business does.

trenen says:

(a) I find this funny because the two emails that Android Central chose to show were from women.

(b) all you people getting ruffled over this stupid game need to grow up and get your prioritities straight. You people complaining are probably the same people that find it okay to play video games that include shooting and beating up on people. I find the over-protection and over-reaction from peole when something bad is related to animals an outrage, and this is someone that works for a non-profit that protects both children and animals. This game is a GAME. It's not real. It's not hurting anyone or anything, and it's not being featured n the Android Market. This means anyone that wants it has to actually hunt for it.

Grow up, all of you.

TBolt says:

Thanks for the dev's email address. This one deserves a little Nasty-Gram. *sigh*

JeffDenver says:

It will be followed by my e-mail telling him to ignore yours.

You people are hypocrites...there are LOTS of games on the market that show violence against animals and even people, yet I am guessing you dont spam hate mail to those developers.

This whole situation is just oozing with hypocrisy. Someone needs to come mop it up... its sticky and its getting all over the place.

These comments indicate a stunning lack of understanding regarding what can and cannot be protected under free speech. I'm guessing this is the kind of intellect that created this "game" in the first place. Commercial speech which promotes an illegal product or service is NOT protected under the first amendment. In general, commercial speech is the most regulated and least protected under the first amendment. Additionally, this app would fall under the category of "obscene" speech, which is also not protected under free speech. You cannot yell fire in a crowded building, you cannot make threats against a person, you cannot spread libel, you cannot endorse killing the president, and cannot promote criminal behavior. For anyone who doesn't already know, dog fighting is a crime. Don't dumb down the idea of free speech to fit your notion that it covers anything and everything that is spewed out by people like those who created this app.
For those who think there should be no limitation on what is put in apps like this, would you like to see guide to pedophilia? Or perhaps a guide to hijack planes and drive them into skyscrapers? Or how to beat your spouse without leaving incriminating marks? Or perhaps how to embezzle from your employer? Not everything is protected by free speech, and there's a reason for that. Dog fighting is a CRIME, and there's a definite link between videos and role playing and becoming desensitized to violence, increasing the likelihood of aberrant behavior. I'm happy to discuss the data on that for anyone who wants to question it. It was clear to all of us in medical school and while I was getting an advanced degree in neuroscience.
Thank you Phil for standing up for what you believe is right. It's often so much easier to avoid the hard issues. This is a disgusting low for Android and Google.

Impulses says:

If even half of that is true (i have no reason to doubt ya, just saying); then all this free publicity for the app is just doing more harm than good. It's raising the level of interest and awareness, sure most people are gonna be put off by it, but a percentage is still gonna look into it. Why bother? We can't control the entire berth of content on the internet, isn't it much easier AND effective to ignore it? You're not standing up for anything by calling it out, just driving downloads up.

mike340t says:

BTW, there are hundres of games that are based on or involve "crimes/criminal activity" and they have actually made BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, no amount of whining can change that.

trenen says:

Before going off On something you clearly don't fully understand yourself, please justify to me how it's okay to kill people but not animals. Thanks.

ScottJ says:

Ask yourself why it's ok to kill adults in a game but not children?

mike340t says:

Why is it ok to shoot harmless deer FOR SPORT AND FUN?? which was a featured game BTW!!

ScottJ says:

You didn't answer the question.

mike340t says:

I have no probs shooting kids in a game.. I have no probs shooting anything in a game... Mostly because I know it is just a game and I am a pefectly sane person who knows it's not real.

ScottJ says:

You truly are a fick suck. Thank you for your honesty though.

trenen says:

If you are going to ask a stupid question, make sure you understand the conversation. The argument has never been its okay to kill people, the argument was why is it okay to kill people but not animals. Oh yes.. And as far as killing kids go, you obviously have not played Bioshock.

ScottJ says:

I have played Bioshock. In fact, I've beaten it. I chose to save all of my "Little Sisters". Did you?

It's all about context. People make these crazy analogies claiming that this dog fighting game is equivalent to Pokemon. That's ridiculous.

Like I said. I don't think it should be removed from the marketplace. I don't think any non-malware app should be removed. My point is that people try to make these broad analogies but simply disregard context like it's unimportant. It is important. Teasing out the line that people draw is illustrative as to where that line is. Those that claim there is no line are either extremely principled or just amoral.

trenen says:

A video game is context. You think that Pokemon is a ridiculous comparison. Why? They are animals fighting each other. In fact, it's a kid making the animals fight each other so that kid can collect that ball thing. Fantasy or not, the concept is no different.

kalleguld says:

This comment indicate a stunning lack of reading previous posts. If making a game about illegal activities was itself illegal, the world of gaming would look "slightly" different. Hint: try searching for "GTA" or "columbine rpg".

And have you tried the game? Do you know if it's actively promoting illegal things (i.e. saying "please do this in real life"), or just depicting it?
And: Promoting illegal activities is NOT illegal (morally wrong, maybe)(except for a few crimes). It is your own responsibility to obey the law. If you cannot see why this is a Good Thing, read "1984"


threed61#WN says:

I bet we all look forward to living in a society where neuroscientists get to decide whats good for us! Disgusting commercial speech is protected every day, check your local theaters and video stores. If you don't like it don't watch, listen or participate. Let others decide for themselves.

foxpacific says:

Hey Neuro-doctor-medi-genius....

Why don't you supply a link to a post made by you on a forum somewhere condescending the people pissed about not being able to play their game that simulates the murder of human beings, Black Ops, (which is also illegal) because the PSN network has been down for several days now.

Please oh please I'd like to see the post where you tell them their life is better because of it.

ScottJ says:

Killing people in a war is not illegal. If it were, there would be a lot of soldiers in jail right now.

foxpacific says:

Ok, swap Black Ops with Grand Theft Auto... or a hundred other games that portray illegal activities... Or is hitting grandma in the head with a shovel not illegal either???

foxpacific says:

Oh by the way, thanks to the attention brought by this article, I've since downloaded the app, so has my son and all his friends. I've been training my dogs all day, let me know you're username so I can add you in and we can set up a fight....

onixblack says:


spokenwordd says:


With all due respect sir or madame you are sooooo wrong on your interpretation of the First Amendment. While I am not an advocate of "obscene" speech. It is very much protected under the wonderful First Amendment.

As a matter of fact the recent Supreme Court decision of 8-1 in favor of the so called Westboro Baptist Church.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court, protects "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

The point being that everyone is "offended" by something. Gays are offended by those who teach the Bible's position on homosexuality as a sin. Blacks are offended by the KKK's teaching on race and many are offended by the lyrics in modern music or in this case games.

Being offended or indifferent to an opinion is not grounds to be silenced by the law even in cases where the offence is great. Is there anything too much more offensive than Westboro showing up at your kid's funeral with their rhetoric? But it is protected. 8-1 is a STRONG confirmation of the strength of our 1st Amendment.

No other nation in the world can claim the collective rights given by God and expounded in our Great Constitution.

So I disagree with your assertions and so does the Constitution and the high court.

By the way, check a few book stores. There are books on most if not all of the things you listed. Ever hear of the "Anarchist's Cookbook", it is not illegal. Even OJ wrote a book called "If I Did It, Confession of a Killer" or how about materials by the Man-Boy Love Association about pedophilia. Not illegal even though any fool reading would see that it details the crime exacta.

To be offended or outraged is OK. The fact that we live in a nation that protects the marketplace of ideal is vital to our greatness.

Even when they offend us....

Rigelian says:

I agree that Phil is taking a good stand and exercising his opinion on the matter. I disagree about this being a low for android or Google. I also believe that the link between violence and violent videogames is tenuous at best.

There is a provision in the Google developer policy that acknowledges Google's authority to remove content that has gratuitous violeretty sure that one reason for this provision is to provide Google cover in situations just like this.

I expect that Google will eventually figure out whether this will ultimately hurt or help them when making their decision to keep or remove this app. I would expect nothing more from a corporation. I will say that the shrillness coming from both the anti and pro side is expected. It seems the type of currency that goes over big in today's discourse.

triger75 says:

But mowing down hookers and anyone/thing else in your way in GTA 1,2,3,4 is ok? Why then did this not fall under your limited free speech? I mean that was killing people, dealing drugs, and just about anything else you can think of that was illegal.

o2bnclemson says:

It never ceases to amaze me - you can have video games with people shooting people, bad guys shooting cops, car thieves running over old ladies, and nobody cares. But put out a game about dog fighting and all hell breaks loose.

When will people learn - ignore it and it will most likely go away. Give it volumes of free press and attention and it will grow. Simple as that.

It's a GAME people! Don't like it? Don't download it! Shut up about it and don't give it any free publicity.

BTW, I'm what some would call a "hardcore conservative" and that's why I think government has no role in determining what we can and cannot consider entertainment - as long as no laws are broken.

Impulses says:

I couldn't care less for this type of crap, but you're giving them exactly what they want, MORE PUBLICITY. Why not just ignore it? It's not like it's real and the world will gain anything from Google taking it down. People who enjoy that crap for real will still do it until they get busted, giving this any free publicity at all just brings in more potential interest.

PensHockey says:

I find this game aweful. i downloaded it just to give it one star and tell them how discusting it was.

I believe Android pull a Hitler theme off the market place awhile back? true?

Maybe we should have baby shotput on the market oh oh oh i know "LINCH THE BLACK GUY"!!!! Now that would be a fun game... after all it is just a game right?

trenen says:

Hitler Is far different than a cultural game in the vein of cock fighting and bull fighting.

ScottJ says:


curvatura99 says:

There are about 5-6 million reasons why it's different.

Florynce says:

Very irresponsible post for a news site to promote censorship. Good job.

mike340t says:

So I guess the all mighty Google Gods should also bar me from listening to any music that might offend others? Entertainment is just that ENTERTAINMENT.. I listened to some of the darkest music growing up, played the most violent video games, read the sickest books.. I was never censored.. Hell my youngest sister used to sing manson in her freaking crib!! and.. yet.. now.. I am a normal adult/parent..
(start rant) My 3 year old daughter headbangs with me and is normal, sweet and actually smarter than all the 3 year olds around her, been cleaning her own room since 2, slept in toddler bed since 12 months..Can count to freaking 50.. etc.. etc.. She can tell the difference from what is fake and mere entertainment and reality.. I honestly believe that by extreme censoring we are encouraging the dumbing down of this nation and we are becoming a country of whiners... Half the news these days is merely just whining.. (end rant)

triger75 says:

Agreed! Stop whining people. You know you killed your virtual dog anyways as soon as you deleted the app after leaving your one star rating. Good Job.

This game is not my cup of tea, but if there were a cock-fighting one...well, now we're talking!

BTW, that's a joke, people.

cj100570 says:

This was an interesting read. And by interesting I mean boring. Now I think I'll get back to killing Zombies, Nazis, Hookers, Pigs, and Time.

klmsu19#AC says:

It's kind of hypocritical. Games come out every day with killing and mutilating humans and no one looks twice; aliens; zombies; all kinds of sick stuff.

But when its dogs people whine and scream and cite Michael Vick. Are they more valuable than human life now that people overlook every day in games?

Kind of ridiculous if you ask me. Any finally, IT'S A GAME. It's not real life. If people did what they see in games most kids/teens would be killers

SDiederick says:

I find nothing wrong with it. Sure its pretty sick but its a game and dogs fight with each other all the time in the wild, don't they.
@BigCrisco39- lol "Linch the Black Guy".

kalleguld says:

Maybe he meant to say "Lynch - the black guy". You know the game about an African-american guy named Lynch. :)

ChaosZero112 says:

It's your choice to download it. No one is forcing you. If it's sick and repulsive, don't download it.

Animals fight and kill eachother in the wild all the time. Suddenly it's a game and it's wrong.

PresidentJFJ says:

I think this is the most biased article not involving Apple I've read on Androidcentral. It's a shame that Phil's trying to make his personal distaste for an app viable by writing a crappy article whining to the public about his own concern. While others may have written in with the same complaints, that doesn't make the app inherently wrong.

The only reason people are surprised by a game like this is because it hasn't happened yet. Hell GTA is a far worse example of human behaviour through a game. The point of video games is not to learn how to enact your fantasies in reality. If it was, any popular FPS or fighting game would be illegal to produce.

It does seem pretty clear that the developers are trying to make an example with their approach to marketing this game, which is their choice. It's also your choice not to download this app.

yutsoku says:

It's so funny people are so against this game. When you have much worse games out there. This is just a freaking video game. I don't go around stealing dogs in real life and making them fight. What about all you people who play GTA, do you go around stealing cars and killing people? GTA is more messed up than this game. And the mobster games and all that crap... Yet you are more worried about imaginary dog fights? What's wrong with you people? Go on and tell your children it's okay to kill people and steal cars and start huge gang wars. Just as long as they don't do dog fights.

tailsthecat3 says:

I know humans. I know dogs. Some of those dogs are better than some of the humans.

Whomever made this game, I hope gets ****

FrasierCrane says:

Gawsh, the people behind this app must just be COMPLETE IDIOTS to think people would ever buy a game where you train animals to fight! There's absolutely no precedent for it

mjforte says:

I know right. People would never buy a game like Pokemon where you train animals to fight each other....oh wait they would because their "mythical." I hate double standards.

ScottJ says:

Context does make a difference.

trenen says:

Thus the double standard and the problem with people. BTW, a video game is context.

I think people are missing the point, Google is not the government, they have the right to censor anything they want. If you choose not to sell condoms in your store because you morally object is that censorship?? Sure but everyone has the right to not shop there for such an act. Make your own app store if you have a problem with censorship. They haven't censored anything yet, but if they do, you do not have to use that service. You would think conservatives would know that. In a free society we have the right to call on companies to do the right thing.

ScottJ says:

Yep. Best comment on here so far.

mike340t says:

No Google is not the government, but many have tried and failed to get the government involved for the same exact reasons.. Also with it's reach and users, Google has the power to affect more people than the government these days... How is pulling this game the right thing to do? I have yet to hear a real answer other than "it bothers me" or some other whine.. I highly doubt anyone who plays this is going to start a dog fighting ring..

balthuszar says:

the point here is, many MANY people came to google because they were sick of the other companies and their censorship...and as far as calling on companies to do the right thing, google not censoring would be them doing the right thing, it would keep google on a plane higher than Apple...
besides i think most of the problems people have is not with the censorship, but with phil calling for it, thus forcing his opinion on everyone...if you run a site such as this, you're generally supposed to keep middle of the road

JeffDenver says:

Google is also promoting their platform as open. How open is it when they arbitrarily deny apps simply because some people (maybe not even a majority) dont like the content? How does that make them any different from Apple?

Should they have the "right" to pull apps? Of course they should. But pulling apps because a few people are pissed off about the content is setting a really bad precedent, and makes them look like hypocrites.

I think I, as the end user, am the best judge of what apps I should buy. Not you and not google.

IIJBII says:

Regardless of what people think or say "open" has its limits and boundaries. Just like freedom. I don't agree with people using Android as being "open" to justify this. Would it matter if Google pulled this, no. It won't hurt them (I know some will make a stink) but it's not the masses, and certainly not enough to hurt Google. If they leave this could it hurt them? I don't know that it would directly hurt them but the bad press and waves caused by this wouldn't help.

JeffDenver says:

It will hurt them in the sense that they will look like hypocrites. Yeah, people will notice that. It might not kill them, but it will hurt them.

What will the next app to be pulled be? I mean, why stop here?

This app would not be pulled for sex or violence or piracy, but because of the content and nothing else. Yeah, I think thats a slippery slope that would be a mistake to go down.

IIJBII says:

I don't agree but it's your opinion. Android is growing like crazy and like it or not a huge piece of that growth is people who don't know what open means or care about it. Most people are general consumers and may look t this as bad which is more important to them then open. Again, like it or not "open" has boundaries and isn't completely "open". It's just the way it is. Have they seen a major backlash for being slow releasing the Honeycomb source code? In the developer forums and sites, yes, but guess what people are excited for the Transformer and other Honeycomb tablets.

JeffDenver says:

If it becomes a trend, yes, average people will notice it. And the ones for whom "open" is a good thing might consider alternative products.

Yeah, "open" matters to a lot of Android users. Look at the comments in this thread...I am hardly the only one. Google cant point fingers at Apple for banning apps based on content alone if they do the exact same thing themselves.

IIJBII says:

I didn't say or imply you were the only one. I get and understand that; as well as the concern for "open". The reality is it's not the masses. I would bet many Android users don't even know what open is or why it would concern them.

It can be viewed a lot of ways, but, at the end of the day (as I said before) open isn't as open as everyone would like to think. I think its hard to prove otherwise. And at the end of the day we are at the mercy of google if we are using their OS.

Rigelian says:

Google's "platform" at least until honeycomb, is open, the android market never has been and was never been intended to be. If you don't believe me where can you find the white supremicist, Neo Nazi themes, or the hard core sexual themes in the android market? You can't, why? Because it is within Google's business interest not to make them available in the market. The market is not open, it's just more open than Apple's.

The platform is open in the sense that Google has built in a structure that allows sideloading apps from any depraved, sick, vile source that you may choose to use. (Excluding of course AT&T's abomination).

I think this application is sick...I wouldn't download it. I am indifferent on the question of whether Google should ban it. However those sputtering about the banning of this app as an affront to freedom and liberty are silly. It is neither.

PensHockey says:

I have been down south before and I know there are some racist hicks out there. So I think that a game about killing black people should be fine. It happens in "the wild" so a game about it should be ok. If you don't like it don't download it. Come on devs "lynch the black guy" a GAME for the family.

Sadly, there are people who would seriously agree with you.

mjforte says:

Has anyone played Call of Duty world at War? Remember there being attack dogs that you could kill? How is this seen as OK to people in this game but a dog fighting game gets grilled by everyone? I hate when people have double standards like this. Understand its a GAME! If you don't choose to play it then don't. But don't play games where you kill anything else and point the finger at Dog Wars for being the bad guy. Is Pokemon not the same concept as Dog Wars, but its OK for kids to play that right?

oldbaldy says:

I installed it to check it out and then uninstalled it.
It's only a game and pretend...,
it's a bit much for me but kind of cool too!
Not that big a deal.....

damule6666 says:

Nobody banned COD, GTA, or any of the myriad of games where PEOPLE, you know real life HUMANS are gunned down and slaughtered!!

Boxing, MMA, is all legal and those people could die in the ring..

I don't support dog fighting, but you idiots need to get your priorities in order....

pyroja says:

Much ado about nothing. The negative attention will make this thing popular. Lulz at the people that think 'Android' is responsible for this. If you don't like the app, doom it to obscurity. If you get it just to leave a negative comment, you mat as well be doing a book burning. These devs just trolled the Android world hard, and it looks like they're winning at it.

AndroidBoi says:

its a game...not real life...gtfover it. people are too damn sensitive.

Pandu108h says:

How many of you feel about dog fight people is similar to how I feel about meat eaters, except that the meat eaterscomplaining about this are hypocrites too. If you are opposed to violence against animals, then start with fixing yourself, then see about others. If you already have a peaceful relationship with animals, thank you.

PensHockey says:

Hahahahahahaha. Nice compare dog fighting to vegetarianism!! Your an idiot. Thank you.

trenen says:

So many morons here. The stupidity of America really shines when things like this come around. I really can't believe I am seeing people compare Hitler, Child rape, lynching, and murder all come up over a game based on a cultural game like dog fighting. I can't believe the hatred people are expressing over this, yet say nothing about all the other countless games out there promoting violence against other people.

ScottJ says:

So you think there is a line to be drawn? That's the point. Most of the people claiming there should be no line are being disingenuous. What they really mean is, "This particular app doesn't offend me." It's not a principled stand.

trenen says:

Why should a line be drawn? Because you are vegetarian? How does this game cross a line? Dog fights are are other fights. The problem in these comments is not the fact that it should be taken down, but the fact there is so much outrage over something so stupid. If there was a game out that promoted the rape of children, of course it should be pulled. The rape of children is morally, ethically, and socially wrong - around the world ( with a few exceptions I'm sure). Dog fights are not "wrong", you just don't agree with it as a vegetarian, American liberal.

ScottJ says:

"Why should a line be drawn?"

I never said there should be a line drawn. My point is that many of the people who are claiming to take a principled stand on this issue are really not. They simply aren't offended by this particular app. If there were something that did offend them, they would draw a line.

Myself, I'm principled. I don't think there should be a line and have stated this over and over. People simply have poor reading comprehension skills these days.

trenen says:

I admit, I am not reading 100% everything being posted because of time and am doing other things, but I think many points have been lost. The biggest point being is the origination of this debate was not the right and wrong or drawing lines, but why there is outrage over this app and it over apps/games that promote violence against others.

Smokexz says:

It's not that it doesn't offend us, it's just that people feel the need to complain when this really can't harm you. Think about it, all you are doing is complaining about the game, it has no actual affect on your life, so why are you going to ruin it for the folk who enjoy it? It's insanely stupid that people feel the need to make barriers even if it's not doing any harm, ever consider that Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty kill humans in a real life manner? I haven't seen any of my friends gun down their air port or neighborhood, it's all just assumptions made by people because it offends them for a split second. I used to think like that until I realized that this CANNOT and MIGHT NEVER affect me.

BDHN1 says:

Ah that's right, when all else fails, fall upon the "Americans are stupid" argument. Good on ya for taking the debate to a new low.

trenen says:

Americans are generally stupid. Who can deny that?

BDHN1 says:

Actually, people are generally stupid--not just Americans. Also stupid: stereotyping the population of various countries. But you have fun with that if you think it actually improves your life and society in general.

trenen says: about doing some research on where America stands compared to other developed countries.

balthuszar says:

there is a difference between book smart and what is perceived as smart...if you dont like america, dont come here, and dont talk about it...
a person is very VERY smart...PEOPLE are extremely stupid

p4trickh#IM says:

It's in bad taste and not something I'd want to play, but I'll stand up and defend their rights to free speech any day of the week. I don't care if it's hateful and disgusting, people should be allowed to vote and let the Market decide whether or not it's wanted, but saying Google should invent a reason to pull it from the Market shows, in my opinion, far worse judgment than the creators of this game.

I don't want anybody's sense of morals to impede my rights to play or publish whatever I want and I really thought someone in journalism (if Android Central can even be called that) would be on the side of freedom of speech and not ignorance and intolerance. You guys are becoming just as bad if not worse as the ignorant bastards that made that game and that makes me sad, because I really used to like this website.

PS: Just wanted to add I am an animal lover and I've adopted and rescued many dogs and currently am providing a home for two of the most awesome dogs to ever walk the Earth. I think dog fighting is an abomination, but then again I also think women getting raped by tentacles is a pretty horrible thing, yet I don't judge anyone who gets off watching crazy Henti porn, nor would I judge anyone who actually enjoyed playing this game.

dohboy says:

If i remember correctly, there was a game on regular playstation(the majority of readers on thus site were probably born 1984-90(im 1986), so most should be familiar with this game) called resident evil. The very first one. I seem to recall more than a few parts when u would have to shoot and kill dogs that were protecting various parts of the mansion, and in the hallway where they would jump thru the window at u, like 4-5 at a time. GUARANTEE these fools played that game like there was no tomorrow, just like me. And had no problem whatsoever with killing those dogs if it meant u beat the game. Now, those same people are crying that this app is cruel, it should be pulled and "rape games" and "baby killing games" should be put on the market if this one is allowed(really listen to how stupid u sound when u say that. U are comparing the rape of a child to the death of a canine and u are telling me its the exact same? Please slap yourself because i am not there to do it.) And while i am an HUGE dog lover, im not so ignorant to know that regardless of whether this "sick twisted app" gets pulled from the market, the real version of this app still happens everyday, and it still will. Oh well. Hell, im an atheist and reading all these angry comments brings "judge not, lest ye be judged" to mind. Get off your high horses, smoke a bowl(another "sick" app which i happen to also have), laugh, and grab a slurpee. Guarantee the stick will fall outta your butt faster than you can say "ruff"!

trenen says:

Wolfenstein predates that...though German Nazi dogs are apparently okay.

PensHockey says:

What would you think of somebody playing a baby raping game? Would you watch and go its cool its just a game. Or would you think this person has problems if he enjoys a game like this?

You enjoy a game wher you fight and kill dogs, you have a problem.

Freedom of speech. Oh yes the go to constitutional right. What are they standing up for with this game? Is it a political stance against battle with in the congress, or is it a game that serve no purpose and is in very bad taste and probably just made to piss people off?

trenen says:

That's not true. Many cultures have games that Americans don't agree with. That doesn't mean those people have issues, if anything, Americans have issues for not respecting other cultures.

DarkSorrow says:

4. Just go slingshot some virtual birds to kill some virtual pigs

Did anyone complain about this game? I think not. If people don't like it then don't use it as many have said before. Simple solution!

trenen says:

"it's context"

ScottJ says:

Yep. Now you are getting it!

tjubb says:

if this is considered "sick" where is the outcry for the hundreds of games that kill people? Nobody cries about those games!

JeffDenver says:

I cant believe Android Central is jumping on this stupid bandwagon. What is wrong with you people? THIS app is evil but Angry Birds and Deer Hunter are not? Hypocrite much?

If you like censorship so much, go back to the iPhone and let supernanny Steve Jobs save you from having to look at all the evil apps you dont like.

Hand_O_Death says:

I may not agree to what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

I Play violent video games a lot and I know that I never wish to harm people physically in real life because of it. I do not like the idea of fighting dogs, so I will not get the game.

That said, personal feelings should not be involved in someone censoring a "Free and Open" market". Yea it sucks, but just because you do not like something does not mean it should be censored.

Is it ok for a kid to download a game where you can shoot another human in the face and not one were dogs fight to the death? (Note: I fully believe that parents are the ones that should take control of all media their children acquire. And android should have a parental control option in place.)

Promoting violence and simulating violence are separate things. One tells you to harms something or someone and the other just shows the acts.

Just a couple thoughts I would share with you all. And just remember you are all expressing the same freedoms of your opinions right now that allow games like that. The thought of a double edged sword comes to mind.

Smokexz says:

Okay tired of this cenorship BS. IT'S. GAME deal with it. You have a weak stomach? Don't play the game, it's not like this is harming you in anyway, you over think this crap just way too much. Don't download it and get on with your lives. I have always been against this censorship crap, I am enjoying this game as it is VERY entertaining. I do not have a corrupt mind and my tiny little york shire isn't being trained to become a super fighting machine. So calm the hell down and just don't ruin it for people. In any case, they can still upload it to their site and you can still run it on an Android device if you get the APK. Basically, people will play it whether you like it or not. So just quit complaining.

JeffDenver says:

On the plus side, it is comforting to see that I am not alone in my opinion of how retarded this is. Or that Android Central is very obviously in the wrong in their support for censorship.

tim242 says:

I'm ashamed of AC attacking this game. Would I play it? Nope. But it is odd that you condemn this game, but condone slingshotting birds at pigs.It's about like how you condemn piracy of apps, but promote piracy of services. You should stick to news, and keep your editorial to yourself.

BLAH BLAH!!! I HATE DOGS!!! When I was a kid a dog killed our cat in our front yard!! They are violent, unstable, gross animals. I hope they all die.

trenen says:

Cats and dogs not getting along together? Wow....never expected that. Nature, such a silly concept.

Dogs attack children all the time too.........and my dad shot the dog later!!!! hahah

"Getting along" !?!?!?! The dog came into our yard and MURDERED our cat!!!! They are horrible, violent animals!!! And if you think you dog "loves" you...if you died in your house and layed there for days your dog will eat

trenen says:

Yeah and cats attack dogs all the time. Yes, I would expect the dog to eat my remains. You cant bypass nature.

PensHockey says:

Jason you would love this game!

I'll say this: there's a lot of SPAM in the comments for that game; which I've been labeling as such. I mean, people haven't even played the game, but are condeming it! As I was at first, I think they're under the impression that you actually get to see the dogs go to town on each other, which is the only way it would rate 5 stars, in my opinion (joke, people)!

Rate it because of its graphics, story line, game play, how it runs on your device, etc. I don't need to read social commentaries in the comments section!

mike340t says:

In a way, even though I really don't agree with the article, I am glad it was posted. Good to read some well worded replies as opposed to the normal one liners... If this was a forum I feel it can go on and on..

col_krismiss says:

This sickens me a little. Not because of the game, but because of peoples reasons to ban it. I would never play this game, just to be clear. As gamers, we like games to be viewed as art or an expression. I see people compare this to murder like linking this game to someone who plays it as if linking a murderer to his/her victim. That is not a correct analogy at all. I am a huge advocate of freedom of speech and if video games are an art form or expression then it is an extension of speech and the developers should be free to make whatever they want. I would compare it to someone SAYING they think murder is ok. Everyone has the freedom to say such things and that in itself isnt enough to get someone arrested. So in my mind taking this app off the market is the same as arresting someone for just saying they think murder is ok. If you fight to get this game off the market I would consider you no better than Jack Thompson.

Quis89 says:

You people are overly sensitive...we live in a time where Call of Duty is the highest selling franchise...Grand Theft Auto games are in high can go to ANY arcade and play "Deer Hunter" can download Bird Hunting from the very app store we are discussing...

In these games we are killing soilders...innocent bystanders...deers...and birds...and you people want to sit here and cry, b*tch and moan over some freaking dogs?!?! Hypocrits...

Continue flinging birds at pigs. Yes...its animated violence but the point remains. We place dogs on this high pedistal while we could give two sh*ts about any other animal or person for that matter!

You people really need to check your priorities and stop complaining over A GAME!!

trenen says:

What's even more silly as that while it is a game, it's also a game that uses FAKE dogs. If this game was a record of real abuse and you were participating in real abuse, I would understand the outrage...this however, this is totally unwarranted as, essentially, it's as fake as Pokemon.

iconicbrand5 says:

people need to start writing to their congressmen and bitching about gas prices before this game. It's a sad society when people care about what other people and not first about themselves. Maybe a selfish thought, but true and real. Our world is dead because no one cares about themselves to write to our politicians about what is really killing us and instead, posts on Android Central. I have two cats and love them too death and if they made a game about cats killing cats, so be it. I may not buy it and I may, but I know what's real and what's not. Some people need to grow up and do the same. BTW, great game.

tompro53 says:

People complain about why this is bad I understand why but there is this thing called Freedom of Speech that give people the right to make apps like this so instead of downloading it to leave a 1 star comment it would have been better to see the app have zero downloads.

trenen says:

That's the new liberal translation of freedom of speech because the Constitutional purpose was for us against the government. I agree though that zero downloads would have been better than making spammy comments.

tompro53 says:

People stop complaining there's this thing called freedom of speech that give people the right to create an app like this so instead of downloading it and giving it a 1 star just don't download so it will have no downloads.

lafester says:

I've never seen so many bs posts in one thread.
on BOTH sides.

lafester says:

I've never seen so many bs posts in one thread.
on BOTH sides.

tim242 says:

Hmmm. Where is Phil? He usually is all up and ready to post some smartass reply to someone. I guess he knows he is in the wrong on this one. He's probably playing Angry Birds. Those poor birds.

PRyan0417 says:

I haven't downloaded this so I can only speak from what I've read here. But, how is this different from Pokémon, which is essentially an 'innocent' looking dog/cock fighting game? Why is this 'worse' than Grand Theft Auto? It's just a game.

I'm not defending it, I'm merely curious as to what all the uproar is about.

lvav06#AC says:

look it's a game, fair enough, but you must also agree that mass media does influence people all the time. no one cries foul at drug wars (circa 1994?), angry birds , zombie killing games, fruit slicing games (waste of food). the reason no cried foul (no pun intended) is because they are designed in a cute manner, (I bet that if these dogs looked like blues clue's it wouldn't be so bad). I remember when games like grand theft auto made news, don't know if it's the same one that where you beat the hooker you get your money back.

Now I have not played the game, but i think it has as much chance of being on market as much as any other game. I think U.S America has to many cry babies, just go live in other countries (not just vacation there) and then come back to the great US of A and tell me how bad this place really is.

six5salive says:

OK, so I know this may get angry responses but oh well...its the INTERNET ^_^...I am fine with everything that Mike Vick did...dont care that he fought dogs, dont care that some died. Weirds me out that people get attached to animals in general and treat them like they are family (e.g. call them their kids, dress them up, leave an estate to them) but really there are more pressing issues to talk about on AndroidCentral than abortion, politics, religion, etc.....what is SUPER important is.....When is the Bionic going to launch? Can the Thunderbolt please get a non ADB way to root? Are we gonna see that quad core Motorola phone this year?...Uh oh...I think that someone just sodomized and ran over a MinPin....

IIJBII says:

There was a point made earlier about Google being a business. While I understand some feel this should be left in the market and they shouldnt step can you imagine the field day competitors will have if apps like this stay in the market and more show up? There are many people who use Android (of all ages) and many kids in middle and high school carry cell phones. This would not only give fuel to the competition but also a solid reason for parents to develop a bad tast for Android. I'm not sure if people are aware of how Honeycomb is being handled but it's an indication that Google may not be as "open" as people think. I agree open is good but at some point it needs to be looked at and possible reeled in.

foxpacific says:

Oh, you mean the middle and high school kids that already play Call of Duty and numerous other games that depict illegal and violent actions (Grand Theft Auto)? The same kids that grew up watching and loving Pokemon, in which characters train animals to fight to fight each other? Those kids parents???

And the release of Honeycomb is delayed, however, they are in compliance with the licensing to do so. Just because mom won't let you have cookies before dinner, doesn't mean you'll never get them...

IIJBII says:

I understand there are other games or topics that could be used here. That could go on endlessly. I mentioned it before that I'm not qualified to say what the potential effects games like this or others could "potentially" have on people (not just kids). I'm not a psychiatrist. I was just giving my view.

I didn't say anything about Google and compliance licensing regarding Honeycomb. The point was they were delayed releasing the source code and even statements that Honeycomb may not be as "open" as everyone things.

As I said before, I think people are using the term "open" as a pass to justify anything. The reality is it like any other freedom has its boundaries and limits. If Android was as open as everyone is saying why do they restrict devices from using the market? They want to make sure the experience is on par with how they think Android should be. I appreciate that.

Look at it from a business prospective. I don't feel pulling this or other similar apps will hurt them in the long run. I think the positives far outweigh the population that is hanging onto Android because its open. Look at computers operating systems. Many of them aren't open but millions of people still use them.

foxpacific says:

Why should Google play police and start pulling apps people don't agree with? What you're really saying is that Google should pull the apps that YOU don't agree with. Have you petitioned RockStar games for their creation and distribution of Grand Theft Auto? How about GameStop, Toys R Us or Wal-Mart for selling those games? Let me answer... NO YOU HAVEN'T. Sure, if Wal-Mart stopped distributing the game they'd still be in business by WHY, to please you? But for some reason you think Google should start pull this app. Please post a video of you walking into a Wal-Mart and telling them they shouldn't sell this or that game because you don't agree with it... I'm anxiously waiting the outcome.

And ahhh but you DID say something about Google and compliance licensing. You said Honeycomb many not be as "open" as they claim. Yet they ARE as open as the licenses they used require them to be. They published the licenses they chose to develop under, read the licenses, that's the extent of openness the claim to have. Statements thrown around by people throwing hissy fits because they didn't get their candy when, where and how they wanted it does not equal truth.

And again, you, with the "what everybody says".... Android is not "as open as everyone is saying"... Android is as open as defined in the open source licenses they develop the software under. If I get a bunch of people to start saying a bunch of things about you does that make it true, just because a lot of people said it is?

Even further, Android is an open source project... that doesn't say anything about access to the Android Market or what is allowed or disallowed in the Android market. You want to know to what extent access to the Android Market is open? The proper thing to do is to read the Android Device Compatibility Document (Google it), NOT listen to what people are "saying". What do you do believe everyone with a voice? Stupid people have voices too.

Google's standards and procedures are well documented and posted, meaning you can actually do some research instead of just repeating the over repeated, over sensationalized, blurbs and headlines.

Also, stop mixing open source with the openness to have a free for all. It's not the same thing and it's obvious by your posts that you really don't have a good grip on what either entails. Google can provide the Android OS as an open source project and still restrict what goes into the Android Market. They choose to be more laxed about what makes it into the Android Market and I LOVE THEM for that. However, make no mistake that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Android OS being an open source project.

Look at it from a business perspective. I, too, don't feel pulling this or similar apps will hurt them... but WHY?!?!?!?!? Because YOU said so?

Now, look at it from another business perspective angle.... Leaving the app in the marketplace will hurt them EVEN LESS than pulling the app. So again WHY should they do it other than YOU think they should?

And look at computer operating systems, all of which one could write the same dog fighting app for and you wouldn't try to stop them.

col_krismiss says:

"There was a point made earlier about Google being a business. While I understand some feel this should be left in the market and they shouldnt step can you imagine the field day competitors will have if apps like this stay in the market and more show up? There are many people who use Android (of all ages) and many kids in middle and high school carry cell phones. This would not only give fuel to the competition but also a solid reason for parents to develop a bad tast for Android. I'm not sure if people are aware of how Honeycomb is being handled but it's an indication that Google may not be as "open" as people think. I agree open is good but at some point it needs to be looked at and possible reeled in."

Children not old enough to be able to understand that fake is fake and be influenced by games like these probably shouldnt have a smart phone. At some point parents need to take responsibility for their own damn children and quit relying on big companies to produce nothing but products safe for children. Knives are also bad for children but I bet you still use them to cut your steak....

IIJBII says:

Yes knives can be dangerous that's why they should bet kept in a place kids can't get them. I'm not trying to make outlandish statements using other examples here. That type of banter is something that is endless. I don't rely on big companies to produce nothing but things safe for children but to some degree it's very much in their interest. I don't think this can be argued. Some may find a way but reality is business make decisions to help them grow and make money. Think about it, if they did step in and remove an app like this would they look bad to the small group that wants everything open or would they look good to the others? I doubt people will dump Android if they use some discretion and regulate things to a degree. Also, you're not looking at it from a business prospective. This type of hype/press doesn't make Android look good. Like it or not it's the same reason Jobs made the comment about Android and porn. Regardless of your take on Apple and their products/company there's no arguing they are doing something right. Their financials prove it which can't be argued.

col_krismiss says:

That is a very valid point and I stand corrected in my comparison. Now from a business standpoint there is already a company that regulates their apps. That is Apple and it is their competitor. Sure I can see that them folding and kicking certain apps that they feel are inappropriate could be better for their image, but then where does it stop? If they listened to everyone's beck and cry and banned all apps that offended people, you will soon end up with an Iphone. I can almost promise you can get just as many people to complain about porn and other risky types of app as you can about this kind. Google did set a standard at which they want things, and as long as apps fall within that regulation, it should be allowed. What point is a regulation if you change it? Its supposed to remain the constant.

foxpacific says:

Yeah it leaves me wondering how Jobs talked so much about no porn on the iPhone yet... and both get you porn on the iPhone, and with their bookmarking feature I can even get an icon for it too.... Therefore his porn statement was an untruth just thrown out to give Apple Fanatics something to repeat over and over in comment sections and on forums arguments that hold no weight whatsoever. Similar to his statements about Android tablets not having apps, when, in fact Android apps, unlike iOS apps, don't look like cr@p when run on tablets. They may not use the tablet form factor to the best of their ability but they still run more than fine.

Apple is at an all time high right now, but just as it happened in the past, their 'we are the world' routine will bite them in the @ss again...

IIJBII says:

I hear what you are saying, but I think the perception from the masses viewed this as a positive for Apple. They know their market better then anyone, and regardless (if you like them or not) they are a solid business.

Regarding your last statement - All business markets are cyclical, so the same can be said for Android. I'm not one who feels he needs to pick an operating system because of personal beliefs. I'm one who thinks regardless of what you personally believe Apple is a solid company. They changed the game with the iPhone. No way to argue this. Its a fact. I also like Android. I don't feel I need to take sides on the OS debate. I wonder how many people who have iPhones or Apple products even know or care about apps that aren't approved or pulled. We can also look at if from the other side; how many people actually are glad they do this? We can't forget there is a population of these people as well.

Again; open isn't as open as everyone would like to think. I don't think this is something that can really be debated.

foxpacific says:

You still don't address the fact that perception from the masses was based on a lie. They are a solid business, most profitable in the world maybe, and filtering out the apps that appear in the store is one of the few things that actually hurts them. They could/would have much wider adoption, otherwise. However, Apple does know their market better than anyone and has marked up all their hardware so much that they don't need wide adoption to be successful. But, hey, it's a strategy that works for them and kudos for playing to win.

I highly doubt there are many that would pick an OS based on personal beliefs. I do, however, believe there are more people that will pick an OS/platform based on the restrictiveness that AFFECTS THEM... How many iPhone owners care about apps that aren't approved or pulled? They litter the comment sections, most now have Android phones. In fact there is an entire community built around getting away from Apple's ridiculous restrictive rules... or have you not heard of people jailbreaking their iPhones? Why do you think they do it? To install apps that Apple won't allow in their app store!!! That community is so large it is now organizing it's first conference!!!!

I've come across far less people happy about it than pissed about it... by far, matter of fact, I have NEVER come across somebody happy about it!!!

foxpacific says:

Think about it, if they left the app in the market place, would they look bad to the even smaller group of people that think the app should be pulled? I doubt people will dump Android if they just left the app in the Market.

All the yapping and still no answer to the question of.... HOW IS THIS WORSE THAN GRAND THEFT AUTO?????

Who found it in their best interest to market and sell the game to the tune of OVER $500 MILLION IN REVENUE...

DrScience says:

Phil -

Nice double standard you got going on here.

You condemned this app but in October of 2010 you wrote an article about openness and how great it is. You can't have it both ways Phil.

In the same article Jerry talks about, and I quote, "stop supporting companies that do things you don't condone. Vote with your wallet".
Thanks Jerry, I am. Im no long going to purchase items from the store here. Great advice!

JeffDenver says:

Great comment...Phil you need to explain yourself.

dustycraine says:

Agreed. It's a bit strange for a media source to request censorship.

This article is also hypocritical as mentioned. Funny how people only support freedom of speech and freedom of expression when they agree with it.

echto says:

Is it available for the Wii?

benmarvin says:

That reminds me, I need to get back to developing my baby shaking app.

Also, some of you are taking the argument way to far, while sure the dog fighting app does upset some people, it's not illegal. If you want to ban this app, you have many others on the list ahead of it way back to the text game Dope Wars, after all, selling 100 kilos of cocaine is way more illegal than dog fighting. Save your breath and go do something useful, like sell your Android phone and donate all the money to the ASPCA.

benmarvin says:

Hey Phil, you forgot to label this article as opinion. It's bleeding out of every paragraph.

dustycraine says:

Dear Police Officers, people believe it's within their right to play games that portray your death (Grand Theft Auto) but want games portraying the death of a dog banned. I'm sorry. It appears the people have spoken. Animals > People.

What the hell? I despise this game's premise too but I won't be arguing to ban it. What kind of message are you sending? "Listen, I'm down with all these shooters killing human beings, but animals killing animals is too much." Oh wait, it's about torturing the animals? I'm pretty sure there are games where people are tortured (Kane & Lynch, right? or COD:MW2 with the sparking of the car batteries and then human screams). Where is your mock outrage there?

This is outrageous. You defend freedom of expression in the torture and murder of human beings but draw the line on animals. I mean, SOME animals. Killing dear, elk, etc. is okay, but killing dogs isn't. Think about this.

jaygo says:

Sorry, these arguments are inane. Let's kill fake people with rocket launchers and machine guns. WAIT, HOLD UP! DOGS? NOW WAY! Gimme a friggin' break, how utterly HYPOCRITICAL and ridonculous. Also, the game is protected under the 1st Amendment. Just don't play it. GAAAWD... re-TARded.

japclev says:

People are pansies.

Xanthious says:

Ok so if Google is going to allow trash like this how long before we get such "quality" titles as Gas The Jew or Lynch the Coon. Afterall, those would just be games too, right? How about a game where you coax grade school children into your "Rapemobile" with candy? Would that be just a game as well?

Sure Google promotes an open marketplace, however, when people like the scum at Kage Games can't be trusted to not make games like this then it's more than fair for Google to step in and take the necessary actions to see to it that this kind of garbage is removed.

dustycraine says:

So then you're okay with removing Angry Birds, Hunting Games or even outlawing games like Grand Theft Auto?

The difference, again, is that by your approximation that violence to animals is on par with violence against humans. And it's not true. A human life is worth infinitely more than an animal life.

Are a vegan? Are you alright with your life producing actual violence to animals but just don't want it in your entertainment or what?

foxpacific says:

I don't know how you relate dog fighting with raping kids... I think you have some personal/psychological issues of your own to go work out...

IIJBII says:

I think you are missing the point here. It's where is the line? This line exist whether people like it or not. Regardless of people saying Android is "Open" there is a line at some point.

I think using Angry Birds to make a point is a rather weak one. Dog Fighting is real and its a problem. How many real cases of people throwing birds at pigs have you seen? Not to mention in Angry Birds the opponents evaporate with no sign of blood, which is shown in the first screen of this app.

No one is saying there's aren't other apps that should potentially be looked at as well. The article was about this app so that's why people are commenting on them. Yes, I know about GTA, COD and all the others. This could be argued all day, but, the article was about this game.

foxpacific says:

The line is drawn by the willingness of the users to purchase or support the app. If there is no market for it, no one will continue to develop the app because it makes no sense to do so.

larrytxeast says:

Duplicate entry, please remove.

larrytxeast says:

I agree with what a few others say--hypocrisy is on full display here. I for one am sick & tired of dogs being given special treatment. It happens in the real world too in other ways--to wit, play a loud stereo or have your dog barking and driving your neighbor crazy. The former, the police will be all over you about real quick--the latter, they'll tell the victim "that's what dogs do, if you don't like it, sorry."

Tell me that's not hypocritical, just as it is to throw a hissy fit over a dog fighting game while games about killing cops, running over old ladies etc is just fine & dandy.

And yes--people like to do things in video games which they can't do in real life. Am I so sick for loving a game where I can blow up a person driving slow in the fast lane? That allows me to vent about that real-life frustration. But it's just VENTING, as long as it doesn't spill over into a real-life incident it's fine kept in that boundary. As sick as dog fighting is--and believe me, I do consider it sick--if a person "vents" in a game that way and doesn't let that spill over into a real-life incident, fine--I'd a whole lot rather a person "vent" that way in a game vs really committing a real-life act of that type.

And yes, most of all, I say this--and I don't care who it offends--violence against a human is INFINITELY worse than violence against an animal. This whole deal of putting animal violence in the same league as human violence is just ridiculous. To be blunt--if you think of animal violence as being on the same level of seriousness as human violence, frankly--you have a mental problem, and need psychiatric treatment just as much as people who practice REAL LIFE dog fighting need it.


mooboy says:

If you don't like this app, then don't download it. The last thing I want to see is making up bullshit subjective terms of service violations to get rid of this game. Thats a major reason I moved away from the iPhone. Let's not start that fascist stuff on the android market.

trenen says:

That "facist" operation of Apple must be why the App Store is loaded with so many awesome applications and one never has to worry about malware or spyware from applications. :)

foxpacific says:

"one never has to worry about malware or spyware".... HAHAHAHA...

Sure because Apple is there to protect you and would NEVER do something so stupid as to store your location information *IN PLAIN TEXT* on not only your phone BUT ON YOUR COMPUTER TOO...

Combine that with their products stellar performance at Pwn2Own and I can see why you have no worries at all...

trenen says:

Right...because Google doesn't know anything about you. That Apple thing? It's being looked into and is nothing worse than what Google collects and shares on the Internet.

foxpacific says:

Let me guess you're the guy that gets the speeding ticket goes to court and argues that the car next to you was going the same speed so you shouldn't get the ticket?

What Google does in NO WAY NEGATES what Apple does and vice versa. I publish my location with Latitude and I could care less who knows where I am.

The point is, don't interpret Apple's god complex as caring about the user and cloud you with a false sense of security.

I've bred and owned pit bulls for years, and as much as I am against dog fighting, I'd be a real hypocrite to knock this game when we have dozens of war games and GTA, senseless - killing type games. What a warped sense of reality when killing virtual humans is accepted and allowed in the homes of millions where kids even partake - KIDS, but killing a dog is blasphemy??!! SMH

BoNg420 says:

Its funny that people value the lives of animals then their own or other humans these days.