Screw it: show EA where their money comes from

[Char-Nobyl]

Since EA's already caved in to pressure from whatever hundreds or thousands that wouldn't have been buying Medal of Honor anyway, why don't we simply assert the obvious leverage that *we* have as the actual gamers?

For US gamers, it's a blatant violation of the first amendment's to be pressuring a group with no legal basis, so the hell with it: don't buy Medal of Honor when it comes out.

EA seems to be forgetting that we're the ones who buy their games, and that we're the ones who ultimately decide whether or not their game will sell millions or a few thousand. So how about it? Why not take a stand here? Or at least some time before the logic if "We're currently waging war on these guys, so they can't be in our video games" inevitable expands. This is a dangerous precedent: let's stop it here.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Ugh. I can't argue with two of you babies at the same time.

Topics like this make me want to buy TWO copies of Medal of Honor.

 

[Enemy Of The State]

I'm not sure if I'm buying it or not.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I wish my constitution was written everywhere, so I could spout how something is 'violating my rights' every ten minutes.

 

[Avaholic03]

The 2nd amendment huh? You'll have to explain that one to me, because I've always thought the 2nd amendment was about the right to bear arms.

 

[Iwata]

I'm not an american. I am thankful for living in a country that's not plagued by PC bullshit. As such, I'll be buying MoH when it comes out.

However, you guys have my full moral support.

 

[Swny Nerdgasm]

For US gamers, it's a blatant violation of the second amendment's to be pressuring a group with no legal basis,

So EA is being forced to take our guns?

 

[Char-Nobyl]

For US gamers, it's a blatant violation of the second amendment's to be pressuring a group with no legal basis,

So EA is being forced to take our guns?

Gah. That's only partially on me. I'm immersed in a society where every other contitutional argument is made over the second amendment, and I occasionally get its number mixed up with that of most important one (free speech, the first). I'll edit that.

 

[RatRace123]

I'm not buying it, but not because I'm boycotting it, I just have absolutely no interest in it.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Ugh. I can't argue with two of you babies at the same time.

Topics like this make me want to buy TWO copies of Medal of Honor.

So in other words...you're fleeing with a frantic backward sling of feces rather than trying to actually argue my point?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I'm not buying it, but not because I'm boycotting it, I just have absolutely no interest in it.

Indeed. If I'm going to buy any generic shooter, it's going to be a Call of Duty game.

 

[The Hairminator]

Is it really that much of a deal? Who cares if they are named Talibans or not? Well, except for the people who made them remove the name, but those would be Jack Thompson and his ilk.

While I do not think they should have any power in modern society at all, is it really that much of a deal?

 

[Flying-Emu]

I'm not buying the game because it looks like shit, not some perceived bullshit.

EA was not forced to change it, they chose to change it. That's pressure, not legal requirement, and therefore there is nothing we can do about it.

 

[Lord Doomhammer]

I despise modern war games because modern wars are boring, not buying it either way.

 

[Something Amyss]

The 2nd amendment huh? You'll have to explain that one to me, because I've always thought the 2nd amendment was about the right to bear arms.

I'm trying to think of which Constitutional Amendment wouldn't be fail on this.

Right to Free Assembly? Right to protection from soldiers bunking in your house?

Right to trial by jury?

 

[Char-Nobyl]

EA was not forced to change it, they chose to change it. That's pressure, not legal requirement, and therefore there is nothing we can do about it.

...what? That's the exact opposite of what you seemed to be leading up to. If they'd put CP in it, then no shit they'd need to change it, because it's against all sorts of laws, and there'd be no point trying to change them all just for this. In this case, they were violating no laws whatsoever, and are making it clear that they'll cave in to whoever can put more pressure on them.

Is it really that much of a deal? Who cares if they are named Talibans or not? Well, except for the people who made them remove the name.

Because ultimately this is based around the same argument that the anti-"mosque" protesters are using regarding the community center proposed to be built near Ground Zero. There is zero (0) legal statute that is preventing the action, yet groups are trying to force it to be stopped because it's "in poor taste." Even if it *were* in poor taste, there is still absolutely nothing legally barring them from doing so, and it's that sort of "Limit your first amendment rights because we're telling you to" garbage that could come back to bite the video game industry on the arse.

I'm not buying it, but not because I'm boycotting it, I just have absolutely no interest in it.

Indeed. If I'm going to buy any generic shooter, it's going to be a Call of Duty game.

I figured there'd already be a solid base of this. Works for me.

 

[Blind Sight]

I'm not buying it anyway...yay boycott?

 

[j0frenzy]

Even as a person who liberally uses the phrases slippery slope and civil rights, you are seriously going to have to explain the Constitutional argument to me. No one present in this whole debacle has done anything legally wrong. No one is stopping you from doing anything. I do agree that EA should not have changed the name of the opposing faction, but it is hardly a Constitutional issue.
Also, based on the past couple of years of boycotts and game sales, I could probably argue the point that we are not where the millions of dollars come from.
PS, I am not planning on buying this game anytime soon, but that has a lot to do with not being interested and not having money for it.